Given the fact that it was announced at the beginning of the Oscar telecast that the program was being broadcast to our troops, I think Mr. Moore's anti-war rantings were deplorable.

What a f___en idiot!

Seriously, people, what better way to support our troops than to let them know that we want them safe and sound at home rather than in Iraq participating in some ridiculous war based on propaganda?

Michael has the balls to speak up for his views, which is what free speech is all about. I think it was great, and we need more people in the public eye to blow away the smoke screen. But everybody else is afraid. Not deplorable, commendable.

Click the link to watch the video, watch the WHOLE video, and learn what he is saying. You would see that he is not slamming our troops, he's slamming Bush because Bush sent them over there to get killed in the quest for Iraq's oil supplies.

Your short unintelligent comments reflect the kind of weak minds that most Americans have, and that's why Bush and most of corporate America is getting away with whatever they want. Sorry to take you away from your TV set, go back to watching American Idol or some other crap that makes you forget the crappy life you're living.

But me, and millions of other Americans, are thinking through the smoke signals, and we're not going to be fooled.

No reason to pick on each other here -- please be polite.

There's obviously a taboo in wartime about upsetting the soldiers -- letting them know there's lots of anti-war sentiment in the US -- which I can understand to a degree, since, were a soldier to suddenly become terribly aggrieved about the war, he/she would have far less freedom to express this view and certainly far less opportunity to act upon it than your average middle class person watching the academy awards.

But my sense is that the media strangle-hold is so great in the US that the little shot Michael Moore took -- which represents the views of so many of our citizens -- was necessary if only to remind the world that not everyone here is pro-war. I don't watch a lot of TV, but certainly just watching the news would make one feel that there isn't a signficant anti-war movement in the entire country, certainly not one that could be called "mainstream" and that claims charistmatic, even popular, intellectuals in its ranks.

The fact that he was booed is also ok as far as I'm concerned -- better that than the idea of the US as some monolothic unthinking mastadon -- which, in some ways, it is, but alas some of us are trying for something different.

A lot of people hate Michael Moore with a passion -- I'm sure he's getting grief about this (look at some of the right-wing blogs), as he does about a lot of what he does. I'm behind him all the way.

Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming
about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming
the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to
anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call
them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange
went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush
and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country?
Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic"
leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale
University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an
F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career
in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy
industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with
53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he
became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year
terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998
Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent
of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of
women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern
Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first
Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and
Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone
began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any
other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to
URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966,
both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political
Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice
President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members
of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen
our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on
Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice
President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators
and members of the House of Representatives to work on the
Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he
has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on
the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the
tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public
schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he
earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at
CCNY and received a commission as an Army second
lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic
achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree
from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of
numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary
Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of
Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal,
the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of
Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and
other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary
degrees from universities and colleges across the country.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on
Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval
aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin
(R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to
the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director
of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to
NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to
the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House
Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class
family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to
Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year
at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where
he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze
Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned
his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant
District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He
was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the
U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times.

National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science,
Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her
Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from
the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in
1981.
(Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15,
graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum
Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre
Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of
International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in
Political Science.)

She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has
been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the
University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for
International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the
Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the
Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe
Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with
Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and
the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on
Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed
audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's
Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000
Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the
period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet
Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then
Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National
Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the
Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the
Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the
Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the
Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron
Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the
International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco
Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the
Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in
East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of
the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her
past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica
Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the
National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula
Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born
November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned
her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta
Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the
University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate
School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She
is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been
awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in
1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre
Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their
experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will
defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that
if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we
should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand: Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting

Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting

Julia Roberts Completed high school
Career: Acting

Sean Penn Completed High school
Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America
in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting

Ed Asner Completed High school
Career: Acting

George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting

Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Mike Farrell Completed High school
Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we
should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed
daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our
security. They are privy to information gathered around the world
concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of
terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant
communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations,
our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot
simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats
because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as
informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding
groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our
country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things
Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood
elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts
the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the
Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of
Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He
bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and
not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in
Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from
Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked
on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating
terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold
rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest,
God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the
Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE,
FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government
to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons,
in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we
have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical,
biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no
cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave
him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even
though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used
against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that
since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also
determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable
decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing
of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being
a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I
know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy
himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from
war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him
the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a
maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it
the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average
American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him
clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a
shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous
marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper
tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire
nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country
will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a
certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate
ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to
enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever
to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of
terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation
remains strong. We must make certain that those who would
destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall
them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists
and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is
not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire
continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and
brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is
known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy
did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in
Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of
immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not
end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of
President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stoli: I have never heard such a bullshit..how can you judge other peoples opinions because of their academic education. In Nazi-Germany the people used this argumentation to have no own opinion about the jewish question, saying: the government has better education- they have "studied" the jewish, so they'll know what to do with them. On the other hand, stupidity is not the problem with the administration (except for Bush himself- that is exactly why is IS the president, as someone the people sympathize with but who does not reflect the crap the men behind him tell to him do) the problem is the ruthlessness and the arrogance of the administration, not caring about the opinions of other nations. I'm adding that I'm writing from Germany, having spent some time in the US I say that Moore is someone you should consider as a chance to let yourselves open your eyes!

a bachelar of arts and a few other degrees aren't going to make you a great war guru. some of the smartest people i know have rather violent ways. none of the leaders have degrees in philosophy, and should we all do what everyone else tells us to do? the american army are the ones doing the killing, do you think they want to? do you think they have an idea who there killing, and if it is right or not? if someone told me to jump off acliff because they had a few degrees i'd tell them to get f***ed!

to pick up the subject of the troops mentioned earlier - surely they will not like what they hear from moore and all the other people around the world who hold this president for fictitious and think the war is not an option. but after all - they chose to be soldiers. no one forced them and so they have to stand against those opposing military involvement in this and other conflicts.
moreover, you really cannot judge anybody by his/her education. the very fact that bush has been involved in the oil and gas business for over eleven years shows why this war has really been started. no one in the administration cares for any of civilians in iraq nor for the political system that has to be established afterwards - be it democratic or not. in one way i agree with stoli: cnn is not providing any useful information (shown by marking the czech republic as switzerland on a map at http://thomas.wolff.net/img/CNN.jpg). but i bet cnn DOES have (even if only a few) educated people with a degree. so, what's the point?
i would like to point out that i, too, am writing from germany and that germans are NOT pro-Saddam (unlike http://thomas.wolff.net/img/weasels.jpg claims we are) just because we are demonstrating against the war. why can't america just this once believe in european experience in wars so far: they are inhuman (mr. rumsfeld, did you hear that?) and unneccessary. and if france and germany say they are against a war, they say so because they feel diplomacy can work. we do not mean to offend american politics. ignoring the UN does not help the situation...

Just for your information, since you only hear US newscasts....
the whole world is against this war except the US, Kuwait and no doubt Israel. The coalition of the 'bullied and the bribed' do not represent the people in those countries. Take Spain for example, Aznar is a staunch supporter of the war, Spain has suffered from terrorism for decades from the ETA faction but over 90% of Spaniards are vehemently against the war. Which leads me to my point, is the whole world wrong and the US right. THINK ABOUT IT!

So GWB and Cheney know best? You are a no brainer if you think that's a fact.

re: mr arras. I find your lengthy comments both pathetic and scary. they are indicative of deep-seated ignorance that people outside of the United States view with dismay. You actually believe that just because someone has a degree or some letters after their name that you don't need to question them. You list American Actors who dare to 'question the intelligence of our leaders' suggesting that it would never occur to you to do so. Apart from sounding completely self-righteous, naive fool, you seem incapable of understanding why anyone would drop out of college and further more think that reason is enough to cast doubt over someone. By the way, your president was an alcoholic (so what? we won't hold that against him he won't be a hypocrite himself). you are yourself an indication of extreme right wing neurosis that will cripple your own country unless your people wake up to the fear that they wish to cover up through self-delusion and belief that its country is God.

And try a bit harder than resorting to the old 'liberal pinko commie..' type retort please. Look into yourself - recognize your own shortcomings.

By the way - you did not defeat the nazi regime. You came into the second world war when most of the hard work had done. And after which your beloved Ford had given his money away to the Nazis.

There's so much delusion you write, i could go on for longer than you did.

It usually makes me laugh when people say stupid things but Cindy that was quite a whopper. As a very educated person (since that holds some kind of weight with you) let me tell you about the rights that we have as Americans. We have the right to peaceful assembly, that translates to the right to protest, and if not for that, many of the minority groups in this country and others would still be oppressed, that includes women. America is built on the idea of freedom, that’s why people from Marilyn Manson, to Jimmy Carter to Cindy Osbourne can give their opinion. Also I think it is important to see that there are things that you can’t get from studying books or lectures; for example empathy and compassion. If Mr. Bush is so well educated, he should be able to recognize that a majority (yes majority) of the population is not in consensus with his war policies. As much as I don’t like to admit it countries like Canada and France have it right. The United Nations was formed for a reason, and no matter how big and bad we are, as a “civilized” country we should have waited for their approval. I’m sure the fact that he can’t remember half of the foreign leaders (I can remember 25 % and I have only met two) he has met and can’t pronounce half of the words in his speeches, has nothing to do with his education (sarcasm). As for Michael Moore, I completely agree with his position but I don’t agree with the forum he chose to express them in. If I had strong opinions, as Michael Moore does, and the money, I’d purchase ad space in a newspaper or on television and tell the country how I felt. As for our soldiers, I have three relatives currently over there in both the American and British Military, and they need not feel hostility because many people don’t believe in what they were sent to do. I’m thinking there is a fair amount over there that don’t believe they should be but are following their Commander and Chief. I pray for their safety and for the families that I have already lost love ones.

My objection is not to Mr. Moore's speech. It is to the deliberate deception he has used in the past ("Bowling for Columbine" is replete with deceptions). In that he is so doing here, to wit, denying that there were many people who did not share his views at this Oscar ceremony, for example (he claims they were his family and friends "faking boos", in the name of diversity) that utterly puts me off the man.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Is this then, what is meant by the "craft of film art"? Have artists assumed then the ideology of modern Marxism wholeheartedly - not socialism, not "liberty, equality, fraternity", but the basic and base neo-Platonic assumption that the general public does not deserve the truth, cannot "handle" the truth, thus must be massaged and manipulated by artists such as Michael Moore?

Am I the only person who notices this arrogance? Or are artists willfully obtuse in this regard, in the name of personal gain and profit?

Why ought I not to be offended? Why would anyone not be offended?

Dear mr. james...

It's me, Mr. Arras... I didn't post the long article you were criticizing, it was Stoli.

Mr. Arras

I just wanted to opine about some of the comments that have been made. Being Canadian, I have been watching the events in Iraq with interest.
Some of the earlier comments here were quite interesting.

Education - I think that by saying that because someone has a higher level of education, they are any more or less intelligent is preposterous. Being a university graduate does not guarantee that you are smart. As stated, a degree does not guarantee that you have compassion and common sense. I know many a stupid person who has enough class smarts to get themselves a degree.

The American involvement in WWII – I think that the Americans were the reason that the Allies won. I believe that the war would have been over much sooner and with much fewer casualties had they not entered so late in the game.

Michael Moore - Whether I agree or disagree with his comments, I don't agree with his forum. I don't think that was the time and place for his comments if only because the troops were watching.

Canada’s Involvement - The Prime Minister here refuses to get involved in the conflict despite the tongue lashings that have been given from prominent American politicians promising retribution for not supporting the war. Retribution. I think this is something that George W. looks forward to. Since he has come into power, the Canadian-American relations have been strained to say the least. That is not to say I don’t support the War. Regardless of the hidden motives on the part of the US, how many chances can the UN give someone to prove they are complying and still call it Diplomacy? And at what point do you stand up for your friends? If Canada were to go to war, I know the US would have our back. I think it is time to stand up and be counted and support our neighbors.

USA and the war – Some food for thought…If, the war is as unpopular with the American public as some have claimed, are we in for a repeat of Vietnam where the veterans were treated with contempt from the public for their involvement? What happens after the war ends? There are so many different religious factions in the Middle East that have a vested interest in Iraq, how will democracy work? If the Americans put someone in power, will the rest of the world recognize as legitimate? Who will control the oil? Since America is already involved, I think that we need to support the men and women who are fighting this war regardless of the hidden motives which initiated it. As for George W. Bush, agree or disagree, the American public will have the last say when election time comes about. And that is what democracy is all about…

Thank you, Ari, uh, I mean Stoli (chnaya?), for your well-researched evangelism. No need here to refute your obfuscations, save for one I just could not let slip, i.e. GW's IQ. I have never read or heard just what the figure might be, but one need look no further than the fact that he traded Sammy Sosa (and 2 others) for the immortal Harold Baines and Fred Manrique to get a proper gauge. Thanks for the laughs.........

Education, etc. - No quibbles.

The American involvement in WWII – Left activists were instrumental in keeping the US out of WW II before June of 1941, mainly because Stalin had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler (indeed, the seeming alliance between the Nazis and Bolsheviks caused a considerable amount of squabbling between the WWP leadership and some of their more idealistic, outraged members). Regardless, it is pretty clear to most military historians that the Soviet Union would likely have defeated the Nazis, whether or not the US entered the war (even after the Second Front opened, about 85% of Wehrmacht combat strength was stationed on the Eastern Front).

Don't forget, that the Bolsheviks had been planning to invade the rest of Europe from at least 1920 on - their first attempt was stopped at Warsaw, while their Spartakists were defeated in detali by the German Freikorps. The big fight between Trotsky and Stalin "officially" had to do withth etiming of their next attempt; Trotsky wanted to go early, expecting the proletariat of Europe to "rise up" as partisans, while Stalin was desirous of a more "brute force" approach, by the time of Operation Barbarossa scheduled for the spring of either 1942 or 1943.

Michael Moore - His politics are silly, but his methods are utterly indefensible.

Canada’s Involvement - Canada must cater to their vocal French minority, and to the liberal attitudes of Canadians. I understand why Cretin acted as he did, just as I understand that Chirac and Schroeder are simply acting as the French and German public wills, respectively.

Punishment? We've all just signed onto NAFTA! Be serious.

USA and the war – Most Americans support the war, Iraqi-Americans especially, but those who don't are very vocal and very desperate. A loss for Saddam would establish a very bad precedent for dealing with other Left-wing despots, most of which are just as equally despised by their own people as Saddam is. The fall of the Iraqi Ba'athists would also mean a source of considerable funds for Left-wing terrorists in the Middle East would suddenly dry up overnight.

What happens after the war ends? That's a very good question. Regardless of the answer, however, Saddam's Ba'athists will not be a part of the ruling government.

there are a lot of countries in Africa where the people suffer since years.. millions get killed without hardly been mentioned. Bad luck to them that they haven't got any oil, isn't it Mr. Bush...

An "honest, God-fearing Republican?" I try to listen respectfully to conservatives, but I can't stand it when they pull the Christian card. Nobody should run a country based on religous values and simple concepts of good and evil. I would not say Bush always does this, but it influences him, sometimes heavily (ie. Axis of Evil). Also saying that conservatives are Christians and liberals are godless barbarians is wrong. I am a Christian and I am very liberal, I oppose all religious ties to government, etc. Maybe the only difference is that generally liberal Christians don't try to force it on the government and everyone else and conservatives tend to try putting God references everywhere in government facilities and denouncing non-Christians. A person's ability to lead has nothing to do with his religious beliefs.

Oh, and actors "detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America[?]"

What is this saying, that conservatism is the only patriotic mindset? Why is supporting a war patriotic and opposing a war unpatriotic? My neighbor is patriotic because they want to send troops to kill and die in Iraq and I'm not patriotic because I don't? I am not against the troops (they didn't order this war) or the United States, just the war that President Bush has started. My views aren't conservative, but I don't see why they support or uplift the U.S. any less than a conservative's. It uplifts the U.S. to send its youth to kill and die in the Middle East but it doesn't uplift the U.S. to use the money spent to keep them over there to rebuild inner cities and shelter homeless people instead?

Also, as for Moore saying the war is being fought for ficticious reasons, that is completely true. Remember when that bin Laden tape was released? In the video bin Laden denounces Saddam Hussein as a "socialist" and "infidel" buyt tells Muslims to support him just because he's the lesser of two evils. Colin Powell attempted to use this video in the U.N. to prove that bin Laden and Hussein were chummy with each other. "Infidel" is about the strongst insult an Islamic fundamentalist can throw at someone, and the White House is taking this as evidence of a friendship between the two? That's about as ficticious as it gets.

To Tom & Dave (the German contigency here):

I LOVE this one... "why can't america just this once believe in european experience in wars so far: they are inhuman and unneccessary. and if france and germany say they are against a war, they say so because they feel diplomacy can work. we do not mean to offend american politics. ignoring the UN does not help the situation..."

Yes, Germany, you certainly do know something about war, having started not one, but two world-wide conflicts. Oh yes, and there was that little matter of exterminating 6 million Jews. Go sit in your corner for the next thousand years and come out when we tell you to. When it comes to OUR national security, and that of Israel and the rest of the world, thankfully you have no say in the matter. Feeling a tad powerless, are you?

As for ignoring the UN: The French and Germans both signed a resolution they knew they wouldn't ultimately enforce. Why? Because they like buying their oil cheap and the revenue they receive from arms sales to Saddam. They are hypocrites in the truest sense of the word. You have all been exposed for the sniveling phonies that you really are. We'll see how quickly France and Germany line up at the trough when it comes time to rebuild Iraq and award contracts.

Now let's revisit what Dave had to say, "the problem is the ruthlessness and the arrogance of the administration, not caring about the opinions of other nations. I'm adding that I'm writing from Germany, having spent some time in the US. I say that Moore is someone you should consider as a chance to let yourselves open your eyes!"

Dave, Dave, Dave... Your remarks clearly tell me you have never been a leader, nor will you ever be one. Great leaders do not lead
by consensus. They listen to others' opinions, but ultimately they listen to themselves. But you wouldn't know that, would you, Dave? I guess it makes sense that you would be opposed to ousting a dictator, considering how easily your country once capitulated to one. Like your forebearers who did nothing while your country was taken over by facists, you are a sheep. It is apparent you are envious of our strong will, since yours is/was so weak. I take it you, and the rest of the German people, are bitter you were rid of facism and rebuilt (by US dollars) into a thriving democracy. Having said that, why we would even entertain what Germany has to say about anything is beyond me. Shouldn't you still be sitting in your corner?

Oh, and Dave? Michael Moore is an entertainer. Even he knows that. Just thought I'd let you in on the joke.

Lastly, to andre, who says, "the whole world is against this war except the US, Kuwait and no doubt Israel. Is the whole world wrong and the US right."

Only time will tell, you anti-semite. You forgot the UK in your short list of those who support the war. Viva la US! Viva la UK! Viva la Australia and Italy...

What do they have to do with Hitler? NOTHING. You are saying they aren't qualified to comment because one of their people turned Germany into a dictatorship 65 years ago? That's wrong and stupid. The White House and its blinded by the flag supporters are mad at France for having its own opinion. We are not the world's parents, and the officious and bigoted attitude towards other countries ("freedom fries," anyone?) that has taken hold in the US is stupid.

But it's perfectly okay for Michael Moore (and folks from other countries, for that matter) to name call? Okay, as long as we understand your double standard, Ian. Oh, and Ian, you missed my point and my sarcasm. Flew right over your head,did it? Doesn't surprise me.

Oh, and Ian? It wasn't ONE of their "people" who turned Germany into a dictatorship. You need to read up on what gave rise to facism and the Nazi regime. If reading isn't your thing, then watch "Triumph of the Will" sometime. It's a German propaganda film for that time. The footage looks strikingly similar to the footage that comes out of Iraq. Especially when you see the Saddam's posturing and the adoring masses.

Germans at the time liked Hitler because he got Germany out of a depression and many didn't know his true intentions until his military and secret police machine was in place. Many people didn't speak out against Hitler because they were scared. Would you speak out against Hitler if you lived in Germany in 1933-1945? The fact that Hitler rose to power in the 1930s does not mean all of the Germans at that time hated Jews and loved war, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean Germans today feel that way. And Saddam is a lot like Hitler, ecept he doesn't have the ability to take over most of a continent.

As for Michael Moore, what name calling? He said the elections were ficticious and Bush was a ficticious president. Bush lost the popular vote but was thrown the election by his buddies Ketherine Harris and good ol' bro' Jeb's abuse of our outdated Electoral College system. The war is being fought for ficticious reasons as I said above. Moore simply stated the facts.

Oh, and Michael Moore is not just an entertainer. His movie was designed more to inform than to entertain. He's usually writing books and bringing other attention to the liberal cause.

"The war is being fought for ficticious reasons as I said above. Moore simply stated the facts."

That's right Ian. And you are a ficticious person, or a media soundbite. I can't figure out which one.

I forgot about the Bin Laden tape. Wow, you've won me over. You're right, they never made their case.

Bush won the election because 19,000 dolts in Florida couldn't read a simple ballot. Those are the laws, Ian. If a ballot is filled out improperly, it is discarded. Gore, in fact, tried to override state and federal constitutional law to steal the election. Now, wipe those tears out of your eyes and try to look at it as objectively as possible.

Even without those votes, Gore won more total votes (nationally) than Bush. Not that I liked him much, anyway, but he's better than Bush.

Why are we supposed to care what the Hollyweird crowd thinks? Their opinions are only important to themselves and the uneducated. I think they forget that they are just average intellegence or below average when it comes to knowledge and reality and think because they have a little fame that people really need their uninformed opinions. Some of them are informed, but only a few. Did I say only a few? I meant only a few! shari

Why are we supposed to care what the Hollyweird crowd thinks? Their opinions are only important to themselves and the uneducated. I think they forget that they are just average intellegence or below average when it comes to knowledge and reality and think because they have a little fame that people really need their uninformed opinions. Some of them are informed, but only a few. Did I say only a few? I meant only a few! shari

I have no concern for the political statements of actors; most of them take a position because they think it will make them more popular. I bristle at mentions of actors anyway. Why should they get so much money for wearing costumes and pretending to be someone else while the manual workers that build America make $30,000 a year? A well-known liberal activist and writer such as Michael Moore is a different story. He knows what he's talking about, has decided on his views, and does something about it. It's interesting that he got an Oscar for his vocal activism but the audience decided it was too strong for them when they got a piece of it. I guess they were upset when they were forced to think about something more important than movie awards.

You forgot to mention that Cheney, while in Congress voted against the US condenming apartheid in S. Africa - apparently he felt apartheid was moral. I thought it also relevant to mention his oil ties, Haliburton to be exect. He also avoided military service. He's also millionaire, just like you and me. A regular Joe American.

I have yet to see anyone post an actual rebuttal to Ciny's post comparing the opinions of hollywood's 'elite' with those whom this same group claim, (esp. Mr. Bush) are stupid and should not be running the country.

One post asserted that Mr. Moore has an informed opinion. Really? What are his credentials that qualify him as 'informed'? No sarcasm here - I really want to know, if you do. You must, since you align yourself with those who, to paraphrase, have awakened to certain facts which the U.S. administration has chosen to bury/ignore.

Please don't say that Mr. Moore knows what he's talking about because he writes books. Not to equate one with the other, but Hitler wrote a book too. (One huge clue to what HE was all about that the German people seemed to have missed in the 1930's, BTW)

Far too much of this rhetoric ignores the facts.

I admit that the U.S. MUST rethink its policy in the Middle East, esp. where Israel is concerned. Turning a blind eye to what is going on in Palestine and in other countries IS a double standard that we have to reckon with. The arab world has a reason to be upset with us, even hate us.

But the fact is, the thousands who died on Sept. 11 were innocent civilians. We are NOT going to stand by and let someting like that happen again (remember what happened to the anti-war, isolationist movement AFTER Pearl Harbor?) We are going to find these murderers and remove them.

Maybe it was easier for the international community to forget that terrible day. Obviously many of the folks in Hollywood have forgotten, and a high percentage of those who protest against the war. But for most of us, we will never forget, and we will not let the terrorist community continue to operate.

We cannot, and will not, stick our heads in the sand hoping that the bad guys won't come along and shoot our butts off. In Saddam's case, 12 years is plenty of time to disarm. Since he won't, and MAY supply terrorists, the threat he poses will be removed.

BTW, those who think that we are asumming that 'might makes right' are in dire need of a history lesson. When in the past 100 years have we used our might to move in anywhere and take what we want? The only thing we want is freedom, and we love it so much as to die for it. And if in dying, we win it not only for ourselves, but for an oppressed people (even though they will probably hold it against us anyway) that is a win-win situation.

You folks in Europe may want to try appeasement yet again. It didn't work in the 1930's. It was not working over the past 12 years with Iraq. It has yet to work in the history of civilization. But I suppose 'hope springs eternal'.

Best of luck to all of you. You'll need it.

Let’s keep things real shall we: America turns a blind eye to millions being killed yearly, in African nations, in South America, etc. Who dictates where the greater need is? If we close our eyes and can’t acknowledge that in the past and especially now, America has intervened in conflicts or dictatorships because something profitable has been on the line. In this case oil, and the Iraqis know this that’s why the first thing they did was burn the oil. Every heard of East Timor, look it up, it a nice history how our country sold guns to Indonesia to take over this small nation. Who were then massacred with no protection from our beloved nation.

On the celebrities: I am confused but are Hollywood actors robots, if you cut them do they not bleed. Sounds corny? GOOD! What makes our opinions as regular Americans less important than celebrities' are? When I post my messages I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion, I’m just giving mine and if I can be informative in the mean while great! Just because when they speak a camera is on them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t speak. Hollywood is asking to care about what they are saying they are just asking you to care period! You ask who the hell are to give there opinions who they hell are you to say they can’t or shouldn’t.

Fine, Let’s Talk Facts: Want facts, ok!

Fact 1 Under the bill of rights “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” To translate for you all, this means whether or not we like it people are “suppose” to be able to do this. Do you think I like to see the KKK walk down the streets, No, but they are entitled to. If not for protest most of us would be working in jobs with no benefits.

Fact 2 With the exception of us Americans who remember they are immigrants, this whole country is Xenophobic. The “us against them” mentality has to stop. When Timothy McVeigh “a white, called himself Christian male” blew up that building I didn’t hear a big out cry the “get those bastards” or “get them before they get us” mentality. We need to stop hiding behind the “we are right and they are wrong and evil” crap. This isn’t the holocaust the lines drawn here are much more blurred.

America, more that 50% of the countries in this world knows how to oppress a people. How quickly we forget what happened during slavery, the 60’s, the present. Oppression should be America’s middle name. So if we are going to go after Germany for the holocaust, like I started out say let’s keep it real concerning our own wrong doings.

Yeah, Nadia, you seem really oppressed. Must be tough being a self-loathing American. How sad, and frustrated and confused you sound.

I don't agree with everything our government does, and feel like I possess a healthy amount of cynicism, but I also appreciate what we have here.

While you spend your time bashing the US, Nadia, why don't you try to transcend your biases and think about all that is good about the US. Can't find anything, you say? I'm too bloody angry and pissed off, you say?

Well perhaps this excerpt taken from Tony Blair's address to parliament after 9/11 might help:

"America has its faults as a society, as we have ours.

But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery.

I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world.

I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here.

I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the impoverished passed its light and felt, if not for them, for their children, a new world could indeed be theirs.

I think of all this and I reflect: yes, America has its faults, but it is a free country, a democracy, it is our ally and some of the reaction to September 11 betrays a hatred of America that shames those who feel it."

So to quote Michael Moore: Shame on you, Nadia.

Your argument belies something much deeper and destructive going on in your diseased psyche. A festering anger and self-hatred that goes beyond opinion and constructive debate. Read Tony Blair's words again, and again, and again, if need be.

I find him to be much more eloquent and even-handed and objective than you (and the rest of the America-hating contingency here) could ever be.

"One post asserted that Mr. Moore has an informed opinion. Really? What are his credentials that qualify him as 'informed'?"

That's me. Michael Moore has had the experience of living life as a working, taxpaying American citizen. He has seen everything you've seen and has an opinion about it. If he's not qualified to make a political statement, neither are you. The belief that you need a college degree in political science to have an opinion on politics is one fo the most anti-democratic things I've ever heard.

"but Hitler wrote a book too."

I read that book, so I think I'm qualified to comment. His book is very long, he repeats himself often, and it has no organized structure. He essentially tells a higly exaggerated version of his life story punctuated by angry rants and a few chapters purely of angry rants. I've heard all Germans in the 1930s were required to buy and read the book, but staying focused enough to follow the wanderings of Hitler's mind is a tough job. I imagine all but his most loyal supporters skimmed it. As for Michael Moore, he writes organized books that make clear points. No, you're not smart just because you write a book, but you are likely to be if you write a good book.

"We are NOT going to stand by and let someting like that happen again (remember what happened to the anti-war, isolationist movement AFTER Pearl Harbor?)"

So you are saying that Saddam Hussein will attack the United States and removing him makes the US more secure? If he has not attaacked us since he came to power in the 1970s, and his regime is much weeaker than it once was, why is he more likely to attack us now than, say, 5 years ago? September 11th has just made us suspicious of everyone who doesn't like us. The events of September 11th were one large plan by Al-Qaeda out of many small ones, not a sign of a new pattern of domestic attacks on the United States. There is no reason to think what happened on September 11th has made it more likely that terrorists or Saddam Hussein will attack the US. The anti-war movement ended after Pearl Harbor because the United States was attacked by Japan. If Iraqi bombers started dropping loads on the US, then of course the anti-war movement would disappear. But instead, Saddam was doing ...nothing. His few hundred chemical weapons that are only likely to exist are harmelss toys compared with the 6,000 or so nuclear warheads currently stockpiled by the US military. Saying that Saddam Hussein would just attack the US like Japan did (there is a long and complicated story behind why they did it) is foolish. He has shown over the years that he would not take such a gamble as long as he can stay comfortably in power. He is a secular ruler who has no interest in dying as a martyr like Yasser Arafat. And we are finding the people responsible for September 11th. Saddam Hussein is not one of them, so what does invading Iraq have to do with bringing the orchestrators of September 11th to justice?

"In Saddam's case, 12 years is plenty of time to disarm."

In the meantime, why don't we ask the US to disarm "completely and unconditionally?" It's kind of contradictory to tell Saddam he has to get rid of the handful of small-scale chemical weapons he has but the US can keep its stockpile of nukes because we're good guys. The US invaded 5 or so Spanish territories "just because" in 1899, so now Saddam has to destroy all of his weapons because he did the same thing to Kuwait in 1991? Maybe we should all disarm so the US can tell Iraq to without contradicting itself.

"and MAY supply terrorists, the threat he poses will be removed."

That's Bush politics. Invade a country because it might be possible that he could be willing to sell chemical weapons to terrorists? By the way, now that he has nthing to lose, there's a lot less stopping him from doing that now.

"And if in dying, we win it not only for ourselves"

How are we winning freedom for ourselves by invading Iraq?

"and we will not let the terrorist community continue to operate."

And how can you prove that invading Iraq has anything to do with stopping the terrorist community? Terrosits hate his secular regime and would probably bomb it themselves if the US had not done so. Now that the US is placing itself in the fray, they are going to side with Iraq because they hate the US more. If Bush hadn't gone and stirrred up muddy water, terrorists would never have even come close to considering collaboration with Iraq.

"It was not working over the past 12 years with Iraq."

The only reason weapons inspections haven't been working in Iraq is because the UN has not backed them with the authority and power they need. There should have been UN peacekeeping troops behind the inspectors to blow down the doors when they were refused admittance. Iraqi soldiers would not dare attack a UN peacekeeper.

"I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state"

One black man did that and most of the rest are still poor.

"yes, America has its faults, but it is a free country, a democracy"

Well, almost. I wouldn't call a country free if someone can get arrested for wearing a shirt in public with the words "Peace on Earth" on it.

"and the rest of the America-hating contingency here"

Why is my neighbor a patriot because he supports the war and I'm not because I don't? I'm unpatriotic because I oppose George W. Bush (who I believe avoided the draft when it was his turn) sending 150,000 US soldiers to die in Iraq because they might pose a minor threat to US national aecurity, and even if they were a threat, it is only because bush is provoking them. And that doesn't mean I opposed dodging the draft for Vietnam; it was a war that we never should have fought and if I was drafted back then I would have moved to Canada. No government should tell me to pick up a gun and kill people just because they have a similar government to a country that we don't like. South Vietnam was essentially a dictatrship in its later years, so who was the good side is debatable. The worst thing that has come out of this war has to be depicting people who don't agree with everything the president says traitors or unpatriotic.

Anti-war activists are accused of seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses, but many conservatives and war hawks are seeing America through rose-tinted glasses. It seems like the population below the upper middle-class line is hidden from their view. The crumbling inner cities, the big corporations exploiting foreign labor, etc. Republicans are pushing for military enforcement of the US-Mexico border line. Instead of trying to guard the border, why don't we just stop the thing that's causing them to flee their country? US companies are moving factories to countries like Mexico and payin workers pennies on the dollar to fatten their profit margins. We should pass a law applying US labor laws to American companies employing foreing workers. Then Mexico could become wealthier and the US economy would be helped by factories returning to the US more than any war could. Or do conservatives want to keep Mexicans poor so there will always be someone to do all of America's crap jobs?

America may be better than the other countries in the world, but that's no excuse for not trying to be better. That's like saying "Well, I only get drunk once a week, but my neighbor does every night," and using it to prove it's OK to get drunk once a week.

Once again, we seem to be stuck on the emotional content of the issues at hand to the point of missing the facts.

I did state in my post that I believe America is guilty as charged with regard to an uneven policy on human rights. Like many others, I listened with a growing sense of horror at the stories of Saddam's regime and their use of rape & torture to control their people. But I know for a fact that these same crimes are committed in other countries around the world, and we have yet to do anything about it. (On the other hand, what has the U.N. done about it?...something that bears looking into...)

I'm not sure how you missed reading that in my post.

Your reference to East Timor is an example of what we are talking about here. I believe our foreign policy needs a MAJOR shift in its goals and standards.

I also referenced the event of the 9/11 attack. You don't touch on that in your response. Does that mean you do not acknowledge it as a reason for the war with Saddam? Or did you miss reading that point also?

As for the entertainment community: I personally am not saying that they have no right to speak. But they also have no respect that others disagree (in this case, the majority of Americans). They act as though the limelight gives them MORE right than the average person to state their opinion (even though, like Mr. Moore, they do not bill their comments as opinion, but FACT). Like Mr. Clinton, of whom they were so fond (his wars were OK to support, it seems) they do not recognize that their privilege carries with it additional responsibility.

Moving on to your Point #2:

You don't remember the manhunt for Timothy McViegh and company? The hundreds of FBI & CIA & other law enforement personnel that spent countless hours hunting him down and bringing him to justice? Where were you when all of that was happening?

It seems to me you are equating the hunt for Saddam with a unilateral antagonism towards 'non-Americans". In my opinion, your logic is fallaceous. Because I am for the war does not mean I think we are one hundred percent right and the terrorists are one hundred percent wrong. It simply means that I agree with a policy that removes a very real threat (where WAS Mr. Moore on 9/11? On a trip back home to Venus, maybe...) to innocent civilians.

Since you are against the war, please, continue to exercise your right to speak out against it. Many soldiers died in battles just like this one to secure that right for you; it should not be undervalued. But don't forget this fact:

Bin Ladden and those like him would gleefully blow you to bits in the middle of your work day

with a nuclear bomb purchased from ANYONE who would sell it to him

in spite of your contrary position on the war in the Middle East.

Without 12 years of diplomacy.

Without 48 hours of warning.

Without any regard for anyone else who got hurt, even those who belong to his faith.

"Saddam was doing ...nothing. His few hundred chemical weapons that are only likely to exist are harmelss toys compared with the 6,000 or so nuclear warheads currently stockpiled by the US military."

Oh boy, Ian, are you really that misguided? Saddam was doing nothing? Do you even have your antennae up? His chemical weapons are harmless toys? Maybe you should ask the Kurds if they're harmless.

It is unfortunate that weapons of mass destruction even exist. That any weapons exist, for that matter. But I'm not going to allow a 5-year-old, a completely irresponsible individual, to run around in my house with a loaded gun...whether he intends to use it or not. I'm going to ask at first that he put the gun down, then I'm going to demand it. And if he doesn't, then I'm going to take it from him and paddle his behind. Some countries have shown a propensity to NOT use these weapons, that's why your comparison is ridiculous.

"...why don't we ask the US to disarm 'completely and unconditionally?'"

This doesn't even deserve a response. An absolutely ludicrous remark from a self-hating American. Your true colors are showing here, Ian.

"If Bush hadn't gone and stirrred up muddy water, terrorists would never have even come close to considering collaboration with Iraq."

So by this arguement, we should never go after anyone who might pose a threat "because we might stir up a hornet's nest of terror."

"Iraqi soldiers would not dare attack a UN peacekeeper."

Yeah, that's because they're too busy attacking their own people.

I think I've got you figured out, Ian. In your mind Saddam is good. Bush and the US are bad.

"It seems to me you are equating the hunt for Saddam with a unilateral antagonism towards 'non-Americans"."

Not at all. I think this war is being pursued by Bush for a number of reasons, not including race. If Saddam was a white man, I think he would feel slightly differently about him on the inside, but if the same events had transpired, I think the result would still be the same.

"with a policy that removes a very real threat (where WAS Mr. Moore on 9/11?"

What evidence is 9/11 that Saddam Hussein is involved with terrorists?

"Many soldiers died in battles just like this one to secure that right for you"

And I would have supported those battles had I been alive back then. World War II was necessary. Japan directly attacked us, Germany directly attacked our allies. Both of those countries were militarily much stronger than us until mid-1943, when US production had fully accelerated and the remainder of isolationism was shaken off. But how is this war against Iraq, a country that is much weaker than us and has done wrong, but not such that requires an invasion, securing my right to freedom?

"I also referenced the event of the 9/11 attack. You don't touch on that in your response. Does that mean you do not acknowledge it as a reason for the war with Saddam?"

I think Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq. I think he has wanted to go to war with Iraq (at least deep down inside) since the day he announced his candidacy for president. I don't think he planned to, but after 9/11, he saw the perfect opportunity to do it. I have heard that he was planning war in Iraq as early as March 2002! If 9/11 hadn't happened, this war would not have happened, because without it Bush would have been unable to convince just enough people to give him the power to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean it's a good reason to go to war? No. Why do people keep trying to associate Saddam with 9/11?!

"Because I am for the war does not mean I think we are one hundred percent right and the terrorists are one hundred percent wrong."

I would not think so about you, but it seems Bush thinks this way. His simple concepts of good and evil and his inablility to see gray area in between on any issue is a problem. His statement "you are with us or aginst us" essentially says "I'm good, they're evil, if you don't support my war, you're evil too." Bush uses the word evil far too often. I see he's toned down the good vs. evil and religious language to try and make himself more presentable to the rest of the world, but before he ecided to go to the UN, it was everywhere.

Ian,

You guys continue to draw conclusion based on your reaction to the content instead of responding to the actual content of the post.

It is easy to disagree with an assertion made ludicrous through distortion.

Say, let me try it:

By minor threat, are you saying that 9/11 was MINOR?

Of course you are not. You are making the point that (in your opinion) Saddam's regime posed only a minor threat.

'"and MAY supply terrorists, the threat he poses will be removed."

That's Bush politics. Invade a country because it might be possible that he could be willing to sell chemical weapons to terrorists? By the way, now that he has nthing to lose, there's a lot less stopping him from doing that now.'

I don't understand how I am able to read your posts, concede your points that are valid as such, but when I state my views I am only echoing the 'line' fed to me by Bush?

How are we winning freedom for ourselves? Do you have any understanding of freedom at all? That it must be paid for over and over and over again or it is lost? If we had (as we should have) stood up to Indonisia when they invaded East Timor, it would have cost us something. It always costs something to protect freedom. Freedom does not come cheap. It never has and never will.

BTW, Saddam is not going to be around to make any deal with Al-Qaeda. So, yes, we will be safer after the war than before it started. Are we sending a message to the enemies of freedom? Yes. Will they interpret it correctly? Probably no better than you have interpreted my earlier posts.

My original post had to do with the lack of factual rebuttal in responses to Cindy's post that while the entertainment industry shoots off at the mouth, they do not have SUPERIOR information and insight. They only 'act' as though they do.

Your statement that Michael Moore has as much right as I do came the closest. I agree. But he does not. He demeaned those that booed him in an interview: "Don't report that the house was divided because five loud people booed". If he is unwilling to respect a differing opinion while speaking out in the name of human liberality, then he is a hypocrite as well.

I'm not calling you unpatriotic or a traitor, Ian. I'm calling you a self-loathing American. Big difference.

Someone can get arrested for wearing a shirt in public with the words 'Peace on Earth' on it when they lie down in the intersection of 5th Avenue or Westwood Avenue and obstruct justice and the flow of traffic of those who just want to get the f*** home after a long day of work.

"No government should tell me to pick up a gun and kill people..."

In case you didn't know, Ian, we have a voluntary army. 150,000 troops are not going to die in Iraq. And most of those who serve are proud to do so. And don't even try to debate me on this. My father served in Vietnam, and has enough perspective to know that it was a misguided war, but is still proud to have served. And my brother is a high-ranking officer in the air force who commands an air base and hundreds of men. Very few of them regret their decision to join, and you have to be a complete idiot to join the military without knowing there is always the risk of war.

Speaking of Clinton as our commander in chief and Mr. Bush as our commander in chief, during the Clinton years, my brother worked 70 hour work weeks because he was doing the job of two men thanks to Clinton's military cutbacks. Now he works a normal 40 hour work week because we have an administration that respects the troops he commands. I am quite certain, Ian, that if this were Clinton's war, you would be more than supportive. And yet, I would have to laugh that a man that has such disdain for the men he commands would order them to war as he did with Kosovo.

So your arguement, Ian, is that a country must be equal to or greater than us, militarily speaking, in order for us to take action against them? No matter what the cause?

To Mark Bell:

"but when I state my views I am only echoing the 'line' fed to me by Bush?"

I am not saying you are simply echoing Bush, just that that's what he uses to attempt to justify his war.

"If we had (as we should have) stood up to Indonisia when they invaded East Timor, it would have cost us something."

Yes, but you (and many others) imply that we are securing freedom for the American people by invading Iraq (plase correct me if I'm wrong about you, but I know many others who do this).

"He demeaned those that booed him in an interview: "Don't report that the house was divided because five loud people booed"."

I am unsure leaning towards doubt on the accuracy of that remark, but I stand by what he said at the podium that night. Some news agencies have said it was about half and half, and others have said when looking at the crowd, they only saw a few angry faces, so I won't attempt to guess the numbers of who cheered and booed in that audience.

To nicebigbrain:

"Maybe you should ask the Kurds if they're harmless."

That was a terrible thing, but is the US going to invade every country that kills its people? It is not our job to make sure all of the people in the world are free. An example (that I have used before, but it's a good one) of such a problem that was solved peacefully: South Africa.
Hundreds if not thousands of peaceful South Africans protesting Apartheid were massacred. The UN with member cooperation imposed sanctions and eventually compelled the white South African regime to peacefully step down. It speaks volumes about the efectiveness of a peaceful solution that these horrible things were stopped without having to do horrible things.

"But I'm not going to allow a 5-year-old, a completely irresponsible individual, to run around in my house with a loaded gun...whether he intends to use it or not."

So Iraq is a 5-year-old? That is the problem with the White House and many Americans these days; they think of every other country as a child and the US as the world's "parent." Most notably affected by this is France, rebuked by Congress (in a ridiculous way) for what reason? Having its own opinion. Aww, now we wouldn't want little Francie boy to be getting ideas, now would we? Who is more mature, the country whose government is devoted to achieving peace through peace or the country whose government pursues idiotic concerns like whether or not to be a bigot and rename French fries to "freedom fries." As for Saddam, he is a terrible person, but he is not a child and he's not stupid.

"Some countries have shown a propensity to NOT use these weapons"

Saddam has shown the propensity to not use his weapons for 12 years. That doesn't mean I think he should have them, but that means I think your remark is contradictory.

"anyone who might pose a threat"

And what threat might that be?

"In your mind Saddam is good. Bush and the US are bad."

THAT doesn't even deserve a response. A cunning, brutal dictaro is far more dangerous than a man who sees issues in black and white and pronounces "nuclear" as "nucular." Niether of them are good (that's right, people don't deserve to be called good just because they're president), but Saddam is far worse. It is possible to love your country and the ideals it attempts to achieve without loving its leader. That is the magic of America, the nation and the President are not synonymous. Some of my friends do not say the Pledge of Allegiance because its ideals are not all implemented in reality, but I do (except for the "Under God" part) because it reminds us every day what we should try to achieve.

"Someone can get arrested for wearing a shirt in public with the words 'Peace on Earth' on it when they lie down in the intersection of 5th Avenue or Westwood Avenue and obstruct justice"

The individual I was referencing did not do any of those things, and lying down on an intersection is something he had a right to do (obstucting justice?) if he chose to do so.

"I am quite certain, Ian, that if this were Clinton's war, you would be more than supportive."

Certainly not. I would no sooner consider myself a Democrat than a Republican. I judge people by what they do, not what kind of animal they stick on their campaign button.

"I'm calling you a self-loathing American."

So I hate myself because I don't want my country to go to war?

"we have a voluntary army. 150,000 troops are not going to die in Iraq. And most of those who serve are proud to do so."

I was specifically referring to Vietnam and the draft in that comment. I think there is nothing dishonorable about being in the military; it is a brave thing to do. I have no issue with the soldiers. It is Bush, not them, that called for this war. I respect those that have chosen to serve their country in such a way, but I don't respect Bush sending them to Iraq.

Ian, you missed several points:

You say in reference to the Kurds, "That was a terrible thing, but is the US going to invade every country that kills its people?"

We were talking about chemical weapons. You said, Saddam's "few hundred chemical weapons that are only likely to exist are harmelss..." My point was to the contrary as proven by their use on the Kurds, not to mention his willingness to use them.

Secondly, for some reason I knew you would equate my analogy of the 5-year-old child with the idea of the US as the world's "parent." And again, you missed my point entirely. Is the Iraqi regime to be compared to a child? No. But are there countries that are less respectful of human life than others? Less civilized, if you will? Of course. And those that have no regard for human life have to be disarmed if they are in possession of these weapons and show a willingness to use them or export them to those whose only goal is the destruction of human life. The sanctity of the civilized world depends on it.

And thirdly, and pardon my French, f*** the French. And the Germans, for that matter. No one, except you, Ian, and Michael Moore, really cares what they think because we can see through their self-serving hypocrisy.

By self-loathing American, I did not mean that you hate yourself. You hate America. Our values. Our principles. Our leadership. Our role in the world as a world power. It somehow makes you feel dirty to be an American. That's all I meant.

"You said, Saddam's "few hundred chemical weapons that are only likely to exist are harmelss...""

In the perspective of the United States, in order to show that the existence of Iraq's regime is not a direct threat to the US and it being a threat is a constructed argument that Bush uses to get people to side with him. He obviously learned his lesson after the first Gulf War because he hasn't used any chemical weapons to this day since then.

"But are there countries that are less respectful of human life than others? Less civilized, if you will?"

Saddam is less respectful of human life (maybe not at all) but he has not shown a trace of willingness to use them since the first Gulf War. He has apparently learned the lesson that the US and USSR learned in the 1950s: That they are better used as political bargaining tools than as weapons. And Iraq is not an uncivilized country, just one with an brutal dictatorial leadership.

"show a willingness to use them or export them to those whose only goal is the destruction of human life."

But he has not shown that willingness.

"And thirdly, and pardon my French, f*** the French. And the Germans, for that matter. No one, except you, Ian, and Michael Moore, really cares what they think because we can see through their self-serving hypocrisy."

It is bigoted attitudes like this that make the US and its people resented around the globe. After 9/11, I saw pictures of street protesters in Pakistan and elsewhere holding up posters that said "Americans! Think! Why does the world hate you?" And I thought it doesn't, just you do. Then Bush decieded he would go to war with Iraq, aliies or no. Then I saw that the world really did hate Bush's cowboy attitude, and thought all Americans were like that. Thanks for the stereotype, W! It's organizations like the UN that attempt to prevent people like Bush from trampling over civil rights, American policy...

"You hate America. Our values. Our principles."

No. What makes you think that? I hate America because I don't want it to go to war and I think Congress was stupid to rename French fries for France disagreeing with Bush? Sounds more like it belongs in a Dilbert comic than the legislative body that makes our laws. French fries don't come from France anyway, just shows how stupid that Ney guy was.

"Our leadership."

Maybe not hate, but strongly dislike.

"Our role in the world as a world power."

No, but I hate the way everybody else expects us to do everything for everyone because of it. We are not obligated to do anything because we are powerful. When I speak in support of doing something for a forgain country, I say "Remember, we aren't doing this because it's some kind of duty America has, but because it's just a good thing to do."

"It somehow makes you feel dirty to be an American."

No, but it makes me feel angry that Bush and his right-wing buddies in the White House are calling these shots in America's name.

Sorry I meant to say foreign and not forgain.

Bigoted remarks? Naw, I just don't like phonies and hypocrites. And I will call anyone on it. The French and Germans are both.

"...they are better used as political bargaining tools than as weapons."

Yeah, that's what we want. More countries like North Korea to have these weapons so they use them to blackmail us. I like your thinking, Ian.

As for your blind admiration of the UN, they have a history of being anti-American and anti-Israeli, so they're actions against us aren't surprising. What's surprising is why we even tried to go through them. Clinton didn't with Kosovo. The French, Russians and Germans were playing games because of their business ties to Iraq. They passed a resolution they had no intention of enforcing. Needless to say, I'm more apt to side with Blair and Bush, than Chirac and Schroeder, who are double-dealing, two-faced phonies. Like I said in a previous post, watch how quickly they line up at the trough when contracts are being awarded to rebuild Iraq.

To Ian,

I'm about to drop my part of the discussion; it seems to have wandered far afield from its starting point, and anyway, the weekend is NOT a time I can sit and relax.

If I understood your last remarks to me, you 'doubt the accuracy of' my remark when I quoted (admittedly, paraphrased) Moore's comments to a reporter. I assure you that my quotation, while not verbatim, is accurate. I read it straight from a transcript of that same interview, and I stand by that. I have not gone to the trouble to find a URL for you, but any search engine will take you to any number of web sites with the same quotation.

Anyway, I have to say that discussing this with YOU has been stimulating and thought-provoking, even though you and I are not appreciably closer to a middle ground than when we started. I suspect that your problems with terms like 'good and evil' (now emerging in modern psychology, believe it or not) stem from your disbelief in natural law, a road that we dare not go down in this thread (at least, one I don't have the energy to travel at the moment).

As to whether I implied that the invasion of Iraq is going to make us safer: I didn't imply it. I stated it emphatically, based on a conclusion I came to on my own while CLINTON was still president. You may not remember the time before 9/11 when Bin Laden was on the FBI's Most Wanted list. Some people were fully aware of the danger he posed. While he and others like him are walking around, we cannot afford, IMO, to give him any place to go for weapons.

One last thing: Moore did not state the facts. That Bush won the election by a VERY small margin is the fact; what kind of fantasy is this that is rewriting what actually happened? Is this the 'ballots that were not counted would have elected Gore' theory? Or the alleged 'ballots that were thrown out because they didn't elect Jeb's brother' theory? I assume that is what you are saying. But such assertions are mere theory, not fact. Please don't give credence to an assertion that has no proof. Bush is the president of the United States. Deal with it.

Take care, and I hope you won't mind too much if I say 'God bless'.

I doubted the accuracy of Moore's remark (about 5 loud people booing in the crowd). And Bush won by the electoral college, but still received less votes nationwide. The Electoral College was created by the framers of the Constitution istead of direct elections because they didn't trust the common American to be educated enough to directly elect a President. Now that there is easy access to information from almost everywhere, it is ridiculous to make the assumption made 200 years ago that someone outside of a major urban center knows nothing about the presidential candidates. The Electoral College needs to be replaced by direct elections, just like the practice of state legislatures appointing Senators has been replaced.

"I just don't like phonies and hypocrites. And I will call anyone on it. The French and Germans are both."

That is what I mean by a bigoted remark. You are saying that because you dislike French and German leaders, all french and Germans are phonies and hypocrites. That is about as bigoted as it gets. You are also saying that France's only reason to oppose war is that they have an oil contract in Iraq. This is like sayng that the only reason Bush supports war is because he wants oil. Neither has admitted these accusations, but there is ample evidence that they are partly true. If you will assume that France opposes war only because of oil, then I will have to assume Bush supports it only because of oil. You must admit, if there was no oil in Iraq, Bush would be far less concerned with it. The same kind of violence that is taking place in the Middle East is going on all over Africa, but it gets little or no attention because there's no oil over there.

Let's say the French oppose the war entirely because of their ties to Iraqi oil, and that the US is in it only for the oil. All things being equal, the way I see it, at least our way a murderous and oppressive regime who has no respect for human life is removed from power while the French and Germans would continue to enable one to brutalize its people and deceive the world about its weapons programs. All in the name of oil. You tell me, which is better? All things being equal, that is.

BTW, the Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President (our founding fathers feared a tyrant could be elected into power). The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states, so that they would have some say in the election of a president. You failed to mention that.

Let me start by saying if knowing my rights, disagreeing with government policies, not particularly liking the president (would of preferred John McCain), speaking my mind, and having empathy and compassion makes me a “self loathing American, I’ll have it tattooed to my ass tomorrow, cause I’m proud to be one!!!!!!!!

Nicebigbrain I see by your comments that your posted name is not a true representation of your skills. If you bothered to read what I wrote you could see I am a proud American. I’m proud that I live in a country where peaceful assembly and freedom of speech in embedded in our constitution. Many countries around the world can’t say anything to disagree with their government and I think that is the type of country you want. To use an analogy (look it up if need help), a parent can love their child unconditionally but will still say something to acknowledge their wrong doings, even discipline them. Ever hear of impeachment, just example.

It is you Nicesmallbrain that has a diseased mind, since you have forgotten what America, my country, prides it’s self on. If you want to turn a blind eye to our own faults then do so, but don’t say I’m bashing America by telling the facts. We also give millions of dollars in foreign relief every year, however that doesn’t negate what we and our government has does in the past or in the present.

“America has its faults, but it is a free country”
So true we are free but being free does not mean being forgetful, if you don’t look back on history you are doomed to repeat it. The fact you are using Tony Blair’s words also tells me a lot about you. If you can’t see that Blair has his own agenda we are not watching the same guy. And before all this war stuff happened Blair was not a big fan a GWB.

“And thirdly, and pardon my French, f*** the French. And the Germans, for that matter. No one, except you, Ian, and Michael Moore, really cares what they think because we can see through their self-serving hypocrisy.”
Haaaaaaaaaaaa! You really have blinders on don’t you. Oh poor America and their selfless ways. Give me a break. I agree those countries are self-serving but so are we!

We are going after a man who is very deserving of it, however to equate this war with the events of 9/11 is ridiculous. I have not heard any legitimate proof that Bin Laden and Saddam were in on this with one another, so we need to stop the childish rhetoric of “He started it.” There were Iraqis among the terrorist but it is needless to say that doesn’t prove anything. If a Canadian came and bombed us right now, we wouldn’t go after Jean Chretien, or would we? We should admit that although Saddam might be very deserving of this action there is much more than the stated reasons.

There is no anger here there is only sadness and disappointment that you are a fellow American. However I respect your right to makes your comments against your country and me. Be proud of your country nicesmallbrain, be proud of the privileges we share, but know your country is not proud of you, because you have forgotten why this country is great.

To Mr. Bell none of my comments were really directed to you, however I think misunderstood my comments about Timothy McVeigh, I remember far to well the man hunt for him but I was addressing the fact that there was not a cry for a majority of “white, so called Christian men” holding those ideals to be dealt with, such as we heard with “so called Muslim” extremist. As for the possibly of attach, I hold that in mind each day when I send my two children to school and as I go to work. However I also hold in my mind the fear and death the people of Iraq are facing right now.

Oh, trust me, dear Nadia, you are incapable of impugning (look it up if need help) my intelligence.

And I stand by my earlier assessment: I find Tony Blair to be much more eloquent and even-handed and objective than you could ever be. And for you to even try to read into or counter what he said is laughable.

Here is a follow-up by Michael Moore concerning his Oscar speech:

www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-05.htm

Everyone...My post was not trying to say that Educated people are more intelligent than the average American, but is it possible that educated people can simultaneously be intelligent as well???

That was an e-mail I recieved. I don't completely feel that what we are doing in Iraq is right, but what do i know? All i know is what i've watched on the news, and studied up myself. What I DO know for certain is that I do not know what our leaders know. They have access to information that we can not even begin to realize. I would like to think that they wouldn't put our entire nation at risk if they did not feel that it was for the greater good.

My point was, these celebrities are the ones calling our leaders "stupid" and "morons". I never said that these celebrities were LESS intelligent.

That is their opinion and they are COMPLETELY entitled to have it, that is what this country is all about. I just think that they are being completely judgemental of our leaders, and awfully harsh when they just don't know what our leaders know.

P.S. When I say that we don't know what our leaders know, what i mean is they are constantly informed by the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations,
our own military, and that of our allies around the world.

P.P.S. Name calling is not necessary. I think that everyone who has posted in here is a perfectly intelligent individual with a strong mind of their own which is a great thing. I did not write that article, i recieved it via e-mail. I did not completely agree with it, but i did feel that it had some valid points. Have a nice day everyone!

Haaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Nice come back nicesmall and Distorted brain.

Obviously the art of debate is lost on you feeble and abundantly abnormal and inadequate mind. my four year old makes more sense than you.

Ooooo, Nadia, you really put me in my place with that one. Did your 4-year-old inherit your pestilent disposition?

I enjoy intelligent and fiery debate. Alas, you are incapable of that as well. You are a seething caldron of puss and bile, which shrouds your every word. You don't engage, or amuse me enough to take your arguments, or your little attempts at insults seriously.

Nicebigbrain. I never wanted to amuse you i simply wanted to share my opinions as you do. However unlike you i did not come here to insult people's ideas. i would be interested to learn your idea of what self-loving American is, since you have little or no regard for the country you live in. As for the art of debate,you do not know the meaning of those word,i was a member of Penn State debate team so i feel i know what i'm talking about. Education might not be everything in this world but it gives you a definate advantage over uneducated people such as yourself.

Okay, so we're going to whip out the "credentials" now, are we? Let's see, I write and direct for a living. I've made theaterfuls of people laugh. I've made millions of people laugh in their homes. I've taken meetings with "name" directors because they like my writing and have asked me to write scripts for them. I don't think any of them would call me "uneducated." I just had a short film win a Golden Gate Award in the San Francisco International Film Festival—one of only 7 shorts to be recognized out of 1,500 entries worldwide. I work in an industry, where you're right, education isn't everything, but certainly talent and artistry and emotional intelligence is. I do, by the way, have a B.F.A. and graduated cum laude from a small southern state university, but that has very little to do with what I do now. As is the case with most of the people I know. I'm damn glad I didn't peak in college. So does all this impress you, Nadia? It shouldn't, in the same way I'm not impressed that you went to Penn State and were member of their debate team. I can only imagine where that has taken you in life. A law degree perhaps? A masters in internet debate? I've met many people with ivy league degrees (my father has one) who have never read Whitman, or Joyce, or McCullers, or many other of the classic writers. That, in my estimation, would make them practically illiterate. So if your Penn State debate team membership card is proof you have an "advantage" over me, well then, I'll give you that one, Nadia. It's well-deserved. Pretty name though.

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to
the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very
well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.
I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it
wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact
that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America.
After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees
than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper
and better than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our
excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than
yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I
notice you've rebuilt it! It's very nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your
beer, but we feel your pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up
against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side.
I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in
against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had
weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're
constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which
is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're
not upset over this.
We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with
We are really NOT sorry al all!!!!

We're sorry that your heathcare system has made you wait so painfully long for the lithium and prozac you are so in urgently in need of...

Moreover, we apologize to Canada for them being so insignificant on the world stage that the only time we, the US, take notice of them is when they make some disparaging remark about us, or boo our national anthem. And that they then quickly recede into the dusty recesses of our minds. For this, we are truly sorry.

We apologize to you guys for giving you such a colossal inferiority complex.

We apologize to you for not even knowing the names of your leaders, so that we can't take cheap shots at them from time to time. Not that we would, because they really don't matter to us at all.

And lastly, we apologize for the song "Blame Canada" with the following lyrics that have surely deepened your inferiority complex:

(written by: Trey Parker & Matt Stone)

Everyone: Blame Canada
It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Some Guy: There not even a real country anyway

just remember that during hockey playoffs it was the americans that booed our national anthem and during the olympics it was the U.S. women's hockey team the was jumping on our flag. but that's ok, it always goes that way U.S. makes fun of or insults Canada and we do nothing but sit back and win!! And oh by the way we like being insignificant, after all it not our buildings getting bombed. Since the states are so big why the hell do you need us to provide them with half of there natural resources such as lumber.

BTW "we're not a real country" then why did you all try to take us over twice and failed. Blame Canada, blame America for making the entire world worst off than it was before!!

wood? lumber? that's how you try to measure up to the US? we provide the defense that you don't have so you can put your tax dollars into a dilapidated heathcare system. without the US, canada would be just another colony of france or england...oh, that's right, you already are.

What defense, you don't protect us. You protect your own Asses, but that's the self-serving nature of America. And Please don't talk about health care. No matter how dilapidated our health care system is, it's still 200% better than your no existence on. Come on at least here if it bad treatment everyone’s getting the same thing, the woman or man with no money isn't sent into the street to die like a dog. Oh and lumber, that commodity you don't think is important, lets see what happens when you have to rebuild all the building the terrorists are going to be bombing over there. I can see why trees in your country are so sparse. Americans are so stupid that they have to be order by law not to destroy there own forests, which by the way will end up saving there own lives. Sure we've got our problems but compared to yours it's like a summers day. And hey don't knock us being family with the French and the English, if I recall they have and continue to save your Asses from time to time. It's just that we are good friends and don't throw away a country when they are done helping us. Lastly just remember according to your defense gov't slow intel, they found many of the terrorist came from Canada, however they didn't steal any of our planes or bomb any of our building. I don't condone what they did in the least but it's something the U.S. should really consider.

Okay Canada. So the world is worse off because of us???

Invention of the Car...USA

Electricity....USA

Who first landed on the freakin moon?...USA

Invention of the Airplane....USA

oh..oh..I've got another one...The Telephone...USA

Who kicks the world's ass in just about every sport and event on the planet other than hockey, and soccer (we came damn close this last world cup)...THE USA

Let's face it...The best thing Canada had to offer was Pamela Anderson, and where does she live now???...In the USA!!!

God bless the United States of America!!!

Actually, no one is denied treatment in the U.S. If they don't have insurance, they are sent to indigent care hosptials, which still treat their patients "200%" faster than your system. Don't try to tell me about your system either—my cousin is a doctor in Vernon, B.C. and he'll tell you how wretched your system is; that doctors spend more time peddling paper than treating patients. That, on average, it takes 59 days after diagnosis, for a cancer patient to receive treatment. Shameful. All in the name of, as you say, "if it's bad treatment, everyone’s getting the same thing." Good lord, boy, you just don't get it, do you? Anyone or any country that would settle for that kind of mediocrity is just pathetic.

And please remind me how the French and the English "save our asses" from time to time? Once again, you display that typical inferiority complex that a lot of resentful Candians exhibit. Plus, I don't see myriad Americans heading for the your border, although I live in a city (LA) chock full of Canadians earning a better living and living a better life than they could ever in your country.

Lastly, I don't even know why I'm engaging you. You're not even from a real country anyway.

Hi friends...

This thread isn't really going anywhere, is it? Could you folks please keep it on the level and not keep flaming each other?

Brian

HEY ALL YOU LIBERAL LOSERS! IF YOU WERE ALL HONEST WITH YOURSELVES YOU'D ADMIT THAT YOU'RE NOT ANTI-WAR BUT ANTI-BUSH / REPUBLICAN. YOU ARE ALSO ANTI-AMERICAN! OH HOW WE ALL WILL THAT AL GORE WAS OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF! AND BRIAN WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THE "THREAD ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE"????? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THIS COUNTRY????? THOSE PEOPLE CAN WRITE ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT. IF YOU IDIOTS ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN LIFE THEN DO SOMETHING TO STOP ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

okay::: i am an american and have read all the above comments::: to the Pro War crowd- I hate to tell you this, but our government has nothing to do with humanitarian or causes of liberation... i could site numerous references... i could just tell you to walk around your city streets and see what our humanitarian government thinks of its own poor people (and dont try that homeless people want to be there crap- you dont see homeless like that in any other developed nation)....
Since this war is about 2 major things- Liberating the Iraquis and Saving the Kurds we can start from there- shall we? Have you noticed you dont see many poles on what the iraqui people think about their 'liberation'? Here is why- THEY DONT WANT TO BE LIBERATED! Do you know what the Nazis told there people in 1938 about Poland and Czech? They said that we must go and liberate them- UHHhhhh, sound a little similiar? THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE LIBERATED! And after they did it, do you know what the german news showed about the occupation of those countries? It showed the german people that all the polish and czech people poured into the streets to greet the great liberators. And why did the news show that? To manipulate them into thinking that what their government was doing was right. Now, i dont know what load of shit you have swollowed from our mega-corporate media that simply quotes verbatum what our government says, but the iraqui people do not want to be liberated. Yet, sure enough we are already seeing footage of iraqui people "welcoming our troops"... sure maybe a handful of iraquis do want the american way, and the american pro-business puppet that will be installed; maybe some poland and czech people did want the nazi way of life, too (and quite possibly they cheered just to get some food or so they didnt get shot).... but you have to agree on why the news showed the german people that what they are doing is right- they were being manipulated to go along with the warmachine of that particular government. Virtually all historians can agree about that. Now, really think about it....... do you think that what the US government is doing in Iraq (LIBERATING A COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT WANT TO BE LIBERATED!!!) and what we are seeing on the news is different?
On the second reason for this slaughter is the kurds.... Ahhh, boys, do you know what is going on in Turkey with our tax money? Or did your beloved free press not inform you? The Turkish government is killing, torturing, and oppressing them. It is illegal to show any signs of kurdish culture in Turkey, and yes, i have been there to see it. Kurdish people who speak up against this often go missing. Does this cause great outrage in our government (and you?) It doesnt in our government- in fact, they give billions of dollars to Turkey to do it!!! And how come our great press isnt up in arms about that? You can fill in lines- or then again you probably cant... and since we are on the subject of the Kurds- who gave Saddam the weapons to do what he did to them?!?! Duh, i wonder who.... When Saddam goes up for trial, do you think the people in the Reagan and Bush I administrations are gonna be up for "aiding and abetting?" And once again, were was the media in 1988 critising Reagan, Bush I, and Saddam for causing such a crime against humanity with weapons of mass destruction? Cat got your tongue? OH, we loved Saddam when he was killing those damn iranians, eh, boys? But when he stepped on oil companies toes in Kuwait, boy, we sure had go and "liberate again", didnt we? Did you ever notice that America sure likes certain dictators and even puts certain ones in power- ever heard of Augustus Pinochet? Man, i could on and on like you wind bags, but get back to me after you have read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky (dont fear he is a EDUCATED professor at THE Massachuesett Institute of Tech.) and Howard Zinn's "The Peoples History Of The US" he taught at Boston University so again, it has to be worthwhile:::
I remember that i have to have pity for ignorant-clueless-neo-american-fascists like yourselves- its not your fault, afterall; its just how the brutal system here works. - God Bless You, and America (the world fuckin' needs it...)

Joe, you ignorant boob. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously if you don't even know the basic tenets of english grammar? Please go learn the difference between "their" and "there." You should have in the 3rd grade, but perhaps you were absent that day. Please go back and learn the difference between "poles" and "polls." And please, I'm begging you, learn how to spell "Iraqi," and "criticizing," for that matter. Now granted, typos are understandable, but your grasp (or lack thereof) of simple 3rd-grade english is deplorable, and thusly disqualifies you from any kind of intelligent discourse on world affairs. And since you're recommending books for us to read, here are a couple for you: Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" and Webster's Dictionary. They're as timeless as books can be in our age of volubility.

Ahhh, boys the descent of this debate continues... so sorry i didn´t use spell check to please your bourgoise aesthetics...i was in a rush. And to señor Bulldog; you should do your homework on Government spending for no government spends it like the Rupublicans. Have you ever heard of the Deficit? Simply put, that is when the government spends more than their (yes it is spelt right!) allocated amout for that years fiscal budget. If you look at when the Deficit went crazy it was, sad to inform you, during the Reagan and Bush I years. One example of many i can use- maybe you think that the TRILLION bucks spent from 1945 to 1995 on nuclear deverlopment was well spent, and that bombing the shit out of our own country (go and talk to the native americans on reservations in the desert for some pleasant stories) was a great idea, but me, and most sane people i know think that that was a insane thing to do. Yes, democrats were in on it, too, and don´t complain to me about that- i ain´t a Democrat, neither. i am simply saying that the rhetoric about republicans being thrirty with tax money is a complete myth. They are good at cutting social services, education, environmental protection, art endowments; yup, who can argue with you? The part that you might not sadly know is that they are really good at doleing it to the big welfare scroungers- the corporations. I bet you are big fan on Reaganomics? His administration sure was good on rhetoric about a free market, but, whoaahhh! What´s this? 80 of the top 100 corporations have all gotten free hand outs, and in a real "free economy" would have fallen? But wait, i thought it was a free economy? Yeah, you´re at the whims of the free market if you are a low class person, but if you are a rich fat cat like All the slobs in the white house, then don´t worry, uncle sam will have a safety net for ya... Or, let me guess you are priveledged rich kid, too, and you like that system of faux-free-market-capitalism? And you can probably spell so well ´cus mommy and daddy can offord to send you to a private school? ... did daddy get you a nice job at the firm?
i like the fact that none of you gentlemen did not want to take on any of the points i made, and instead went for the ´improve your grammer¨ route. On, that note, too, if you ever left your homogonenised whitebread middle/upper class ghetto that i bet you live in, you would realise that a huge portion of the people in the world does not know how to read or write. Do you think that you are more ´intelligent´ than they are? That their voice and opinions means less? Sorry, to tell you, you ain´t superior to people who can´t spell...and your ability to debate is even more pathetic....

No one thinks Canada is the best country in the world, I’m Canadian and I don’t. However neither is the Good old U.S. of A. And trust me we are just happy were we sit in the world, high enough to be recognized by the United Nations and even you USA but low enough to get over looked by killers and terrorists.

However to get things reasonably straight lets look at Canadian inventors:

Electric Light Bulb ...Henry Woodward invented the electric light bulb in 1874 and sold the patent to Thomas Edison

Basketball ...invented by James Naismith in 1891

Heart Pacemaker ...invented by Dr. John A. Hopps in 1950

Insulin Process ...Fredrick Banting, J. J. Macleod, Charles Best and Collip invented the process for insulin in 1922

Television ...Reginald A. Fessenden patented a television system in 1927

Telephone ..invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 (get your facts straight)

Canadarm in vented in 1981 to fix American shuttle and the international space station

Superman - Joe Shuster and Jerome Siegel (1938) even the all American super hero is Canadian!!

Standard time - Sir Sanford Fleming (1879)

And much much more, I wouldn’t even go into the actors and musicians that are Canadian that you American seem to like so much.

Oh ya, jetliners were also invented by Canada and the masks your jet pilots are currently using in Iraq, were invented by us too!!

As for our standing as a country you may not consider us one but the world does, since according to the United Nations report in 2002 (2003 hasn’t come out as of yet) we are ranked third in the world as the best place to live while the United States placed sixth. In heath care we have taken recent blows, mostly because some of our politicians got it into their minds that they should try