West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Real American on July 26, 2004, 06:32:37 PM
-
LMAO......who saw this? Bill OReilly has been begging Michael Moore to come on his show ever since Fahrenheit 911 came out. Moore initially agreed to come on but has been ducking him for months. Anyway, O'Reilly and a Fox News camera crew caught Moore on the street outside the Democratic Convention and asked him why he won't go on the show. A bunch of onlookers gathered around and Moore looked like he saw a ghost and starts stuttering like a moron, before reluctantly agreeing to appear on tommorow's (Tuesday) episode. O"Reilly basically used Moore's own tactics to clown him and make him look stupid. Anyway, this should be classic television.
For those of you outside the US, Bill O'Reilly is a conservative TV commentator who has the highest rated news show on cable. He has been dying to interview Michael Moore, but Moore has been too scared to go on his show becuse he doesn't want to face challenging questions. Moore has only been going on comedy shows like Howard Strern and Conan O'Brien to promote his movie.
BILL O'REILLY = GANGSTA
-
hahaha you watch Moore is gunna get verbally assaulted by Mr. Oreilly ;D
-
Should be must watch tevevision. I'll find a way to watch since we got cable turned off. Fuck, now all we need is O'Reilly to invite Chuck D or Talib Kweli to his show, and I'll be happy. ;D
-
I think I might actually watch it tomorrow.
-
This one's gonna be one for the ages. I would watch, but personally Moore doesn't even modestly interest me, I think he's dull... so it's not really worth my time.
-
Should be must watch tevevision. I'll find a way to watch since we got cable turned off. Fuck, now all we need is O'Reilly to invite Chuck D or Talib Kweli to his show, and I'll be happy. ;D
LMAO how much is your cable bill...I'll cover you for 3 months...who should I make the check out to? ;D hahahah
-
what time is oreily on, 730???
-
what time is oreily on, 730???
8PM Eastern Time right after "The Fox Report with Brit Hume"
-
O'rielly isjus a racist hard headed moron who's never proved shit except for bieng Bush's dick sucker, i dunno why Moore would be scared fo O'rielly that is quite strange, but hopefully Moore rips him a new asshole cuz O'rielly could use wun so he realizes he isnt shit and hasnt impressed me. and like some1 said let him interview Talib or even Immortal Technique, lets see how far he gets
-
O'rielly isjus a racist hard headed moron who's never proved shit except for bieng Bush's dick sucker, i dunno why Moore would be scared fo O'rielly that is quite strange, but hopefully Moore rips him a new asshole cuz O'rielly could use wun so he realizes he isnt shit and hasnt impressed me. and like some1 said let him interview Talib or even Immortal Technique, lets see how far he gets
Once agian you are being Ignorant
1. O´Rielly is not a big Bush Supporter.
2. Hes not rasict - if he was he woudnt be firends with the president of the NAACP.
3. Moore is scared of him cuz Moore is a fucking coward.
-
Moore once said he didn't go on to O'Reilly's show because O'Reilly walked out of the primiere of Fahrenheit 9/11.
-
Moore once said he didn't go on to O'Reilly's show because O'Reilly walked out of the primiere of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Excuse
-
and Moore being a coward isnt an exuse? O'rielly really is a moron tho. jus listening ot things he says makes me laugh.
-
O'rielly really is a moron tho. jus listening ot things he says makes me laugh.
Just listening to your illiterate ass makes me laugh.
-
lol..good job by Bill...finally somthing i can like about him
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
^^that dude can't get an interview with moore lol
-
Well mach that has alot to do with ur O'rielly argument doesn't it?, got u real far.
-
O'rielly really is a moron tho. jus listening ot things he says makes me laugh.
Just listening to your illiterate ass makes me laugh.
He's got a point. You can't spell for shit.
-
im def watchin this
-
O'rielly really is a moron tho. jus listening ot things he says makes me laugh.
Just listening to your illiterate ass makes me laugh.
LOL, let's see how you match up:
Al quiada
Show me proof of when the US payed Israel to Train terrorists
Once agian
he woudnt be firends with
Maradona was just be a smartass
terriosts
Yoo Ahr Sow Dumm
-
O'rielly really is a moron tho. jus listening ot things he says makes me laugh.
Just listening to your illiterate ass makes me laugh.
LOL, let's see how you match up:
Al quiada
Show me proof of when the US payed Israel to Train terrorists
Once agian
he woudnt be firends with
Maradona was just be a smartass
terriosts
Yoo Ahr Sow Dumm
aight, I was about to do this, luckily I had the patience to scroll down 8)
-
Should be must watch tevevision. I'll find a way to watch since we got cable turned off. Fuck, now all we need is O'Reilly to invite Chuck D or Talib Kweli to his show, and I'll be happy. ;D
Why would O'Reilly want those guys on his show?
-
Should be must watch tevevision. I'll find a way to watch since we got cable turned off. Fuck, now all we need is O'Reilly to invite Chuck D or Talib Kweli to his show, and I'll be happy. ;D
Why would O'Reilly want those guys on his show?
why would he want camron on his show?
-
yea this definetly will be one to watch. BOR definetly asks some tuff questions, and then makes it known if you dont answer them. Hopefully ill remember to watch it ::)
-
Should be must watch tevevision. I'll find a way to watch since we got cable turned off. Fuck, now all we need is O'Reilly to invite Chuck D or Talib Kweli to his show, and I'll be happy. ;D
Why would O'Reilly want those guys on his show?
why would he want camron on his show?
Because rappers like Camron are peddling violence, sex, drugs, and stupidty to poor children who don't know any better and he is setting them up for a lifetime of failure. These rappers glorify a lifestyle that is devestating inner city children all over America and helping lock them into a cycle of poverty.
-
cuz Chuck D and Talib Kweli would eat O'reilly on his on show, O'rielly owuld try to stop them so he doesnt look dumb by interupting them like he does to so many others, but those niggas would neva stand for that.
-
Should be must watch tevevision. I'll find a way to watch since we got cable turned off. Fuck, now all we need is O'Reilly to invite Chuck D or Talib Kweli to his show, and I'll be happy. ;D
Why would O'Reilly want those guys on his show?
why would he want camron on his show?
Because rappers like Camron are peddling violence, sex, drugs, and stupidty to poor children who don't know any better and he is setting them up for a lifetime of failure. These rappers glorify a lifestyle that is devestating inner city children all over America and helping lock them into a cycle of poverty.
I think you're giving him just a little too much credit for devastating inner city children.
-
so what channel is this on? fox news? so its on at 5pm on the westcoast?
-
I'm gonna check this for sure.
-
Fox News, 8pm eastern time.
-
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
-
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
that sucks
-
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
I am not suprised. Fox News is the biggest cable news channel here in the US...theyir ratings dwarf those of CNN and MSNBC combined. But alot of left wing socialist countries like Canada and probably your country won't let Fox News air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the leftist brainwashing you guys usually get.
-
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
I am not suprised. Fox News is the biggest cable news channel here in the US...theyir ratings dwarf those of CNN and MSNBC combined. But alot of left wing socialist countries like Canada and probably your country won't let Fox News air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the leftist brainwashing you guys usually get.
lol, only american channel I have is CNN. that's not for leftist brainwashing issues, that's just that I live in a complete different county.
how many german channels you got btw?
none?
so, I guess.. alot of right wing neo-con countries like America which is your country won't let my channels air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the racist neo-con brainwashing you guys usually get.
-
how many german channels you got btw?
none?
so, I guess.. alot of right wing neo-con countries like America which is your country won't let my channels air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the racist neo-con brainwashing you guys usually get.
Apples and Oranges
-
Yea why would Fox news be on in germany?
i would tape it for you but i dont have the technology. :)
-
i just finished watching it and all i gotta say is both of them are gay and imma watch tomorow to see the letters....
but i kinda agreed with Bill more on this one...
-
MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION
Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET
FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.
The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:
Moore: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues
O’Reilly: The issues… alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
M: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.
M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…
O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth
M: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –
O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –
M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie
O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –
M: But that was your question –
O: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –
M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –
O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –
M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing
O: He didn’t lie
M: He said something that wasn’t true
O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources
M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody
O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too
M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”
O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?
M: No, I haven’t read his book.
O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?
M: I know who he is.
O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?
M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th
O: Nobody disputes that
M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.
O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –
O: It wasn’t a lie
M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie
M: A seven year old can get away with that –
O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—
M: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—
O: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead
M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question
O: OK
M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?
O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.
M: And, but what were they killed for?
O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people
M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator
O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction
M: But that was the reason
O: The weapons of mass destruction
M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat
O: That’s right
M: And there was no threat, was there?
O: It was a mistake
M: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.
O: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents
M: So we agree on that
O: but that is the historical nature of what happened
M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?
O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional
M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake
O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that
M: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead
O: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that
M: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me
O: Ok, now we are wandering
M: No, but my point is –
O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question
M: But why? What did they die for?
O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –
M: No, that was not the reason –
O: That’s what they died for
M: -they were given –
O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake
M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –
O: Alright, I’ve got anther question—
M: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?
O: Depends what the circumstances were.
M: You would sacrifice your child?
O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?
M: Uh huh.
O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.
M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?
O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.
M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?
M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
O: How?
M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—
O: Why was that?
M: That’s my question.
O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.
M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.
O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
M: No, unless it is a threat to us.
O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?
M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.
M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.
O: You wouldn’t have removed him.
M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.
O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.
M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.
O: I know you are but—
M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—
M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O: I would sacrifice myself—
M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—
O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’
O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous
M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—
M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?
M: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
M: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.
M: Now come on.
O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: You wouldn’t have removed him.
M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---
O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.
O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
M: The people rose up.
O: why? Because they went bankrupt.
M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—
O: Alright alright.
M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.
O: One more.
M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.
O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—
M: Why didn’t they rise up?
O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—
M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__
O: It is, it’s a shame—
M:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—
O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?
M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O: I would.
M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O: That’s right.
M: Where’s the recruiter?
O: You’d love to get rid of me.
M: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.
O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…
END
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm
-
how many german channels you got btw?
none?
so, I guess.. alot of right wing neo-con countries like America which is your country won't let my channels air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the racist neo-con brainwashing you guys usually get.
Apples and Oranges
why? because yall Americans are ignorant + not capable of speaking a foreign language? too bad.
-
why? because yall Americans are ignorant + not capable of speaking a foreign language? too bad.
beacuse no one cares about watching German T.V. People care about watching American T.V beacause America is the Worlds Superpower and there news efects everyone. Also i can know 3 languages.
-
why? because yall Americans are ignorant + not capable of speaking a foreign language? too bad.
beacuse no one cares about watching German T.V. People care about watching American T.V beacause America is the Worlds Superpower and there news efects everyone while. Also i can speak 3 languages.
You say you can speak 3 languages, but you sure can't write in English.
-
You say you can speak 3 languages, but you sure can't write in English.
Its my not my first language even tho i was born in the USA. And also im 14.
-
im 15 glad to see i aint the youngest on the board no more...
-
im 15 glad to see i aint the youngest on the board no more...
lol
-
You say you can speak 3 languages, but you sure can't write in English.
And also im 14.
Explains a lot.
-
Explains a lot.
At least i talk about politics, and I have knowledgable posts for my age. Most people my age are very ignorant about foreign affairs and what not.
-
^^ Okay, okay, I'll give you credit for that 8)
-
I don't know what the big deal is. Machiavelli might be 14 but everything he has said so far is true.
-
I don't know what the big deal is. Machiavelli might be 14 but everything he has said so far is true.
Including the "apples and oranges" comment? ::)
-
But i think moore got oreily in a corner on some of the arguements. But i dont know how you could agree with oreily. I was backing moore through the whole interview, even though i hate moore. For instance.
OReiley told moore that the Iraq war was not bush' fault. He said that bush got faulty inteligence, and so he should not be held accountable. Moore basically said that bush is the president and therefore it is his fault. imo, i think that when you take the job as president, any faults that your administration makes, is your fault. Bush needs to take responsibility for the Iraq war.
Everyone around bush has admitted that they have made mistakes with the whole iraq situation, and bush has yet to say anything. Bush still stands by his argument that "America and every other country are safer because saddams evil regime are gone." Thats complete bs.
Bush needs to accept responsibilty, even if he was given faulty inteligence.
-
Bush needs to accept responsibilty, even if he was given faulty inteligence.
I agree with you there. The interview wasn't really that interesting to me, but I'm not much of a Moore fan myself, and he defended himself adequately.
-
OReiley told moore that the Iraq war was not bush' fault. He said that bush got faulty inteligence, and so he should not be held accountable. Moore basically said that bush is the president and therefore it is his fault. imo, i think that when you take the job as president, any faults that your administration makes, is your fault. Bush needs to take responsibility for the Iraq war.
OReilly told Moore that Bush didn't LIE about WMDs. Which is true. And BTW your right about that bush needs to take responsibility about the WMD thing being a mistake.
Bush still stands by his argument that "America and every other country are safer because saddams evil regime are gone." Thats complete bs.
So you don't believe that taking out Saddam made America and other countries safe, even tho saddam was killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east.
-
This whole interview as well as this thread is useless. Nobody's learning anything or changing minds. Moore believes one way, people support him, and O'Reilly believes another way, and people support him. There's no use in arguing about it, nobody's looking to learn, all they're looking to do is defend their position. Fuck that, it's a waste of time.
-
So you don't believe that taking out Saddam made America and other countries safe, even tho saddam was killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east.
America was 100% not any safer.
Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.
saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.
-
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
I am not suprised. Fox News is the biggest cable news channel here in the US...theyir ratings dwarf those of CNN and MSNBC combined. But alot of left wing socialist countries like Canada and probably your country won't let Fox News air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the leftist brainwashing you guys usually get.
Canada is not a "left wing socialist" country, I don't know who is misinforming you on this.
-
America was 100% not any safer.
Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.
saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.
So your saying neighboring countries weren't any safer with saddam out of office and it would be better if he was still in office? How could this be true if Saddam was committing mass murders on neighboring countries? Also Iraq would allways threat attacks on countries such as Israel or Kuwait.
You are right about how saddam wasn't a threat to America since he didn't have WMDs..but if he got a hold of one, don't you think he would use it on us or neighboring countries.
-
America was 100% not any safer.
Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.
saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.
So your saying neighboring countries weren't any safer with saddam out of office and it would be better if he was still in office? How could this be true if Saddam was committing mass murders on neighboring countries? Also Iraq would allways threat attacks on countries such as Israel or Kuwait.
You are right about how saddam wasn't a threat to America since he didn't have WMDs..but if he got a hold of one, don't you think he would use it on us or neighboring countries.
So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.
-
So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.
Well Initially we went into Iraq for WMDs right? Since we didn't find no WMDs, this war was about taking out the brutal dictator Saddam, and helping Iraq rebuild its country.
-
So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.
Well Initially we went into Iraq for WMDs right? Since we didn't find no WMDs, this war was about taking out the brutal dictator Saddam, and helping Iraq rebuild its country.
So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.
-
So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.
No we didn't change it as we went along. We allways had that reason, except we didn't use it because the WMDs reason was much more serious, that using that reason was just an alternative reason to go to Iraq, but then it became a primary reason after we found out there were no WMDs.
-
So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.
No we didn't change it as we went along. We allways had that reason, except we didn't use it because the WMDs reason was much more serious, that using that reason was just an alternative reason to go to Iraq, but then it became a primary reason after we found out there were no WMDs.
So we switched our "main" reason for going there. So why didn't we hold any grudges before he nationalized the oil fields? In case you're wondering, he's always been a ruthless leader, so please answer that Sherlock (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, since you're probably too dumb to figure even that out)
-
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
I am not suprised. Fox News is the biggest cable news channel here in the US...theyir ratings dwarf those of CNN and MSNBC combined. But alot of left wing socialist countries like Canada and probably your country won't let Fox News air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the leftist brainwashing you guys usually get.
we get fox >:(...but no fox news (i think on sundays we do)...instead we get the local news from that state we're closest too...Q-13 fox is mine
satillite gets you it
-
Mach u bieng a 14 yr old with politics is kinda impressive i guess, no not really cuz any street smart person would kno his politics at an early age but, your arguments are jus ridiculous, u sound like ur Bill O'rielly trying to win an argument or something. just give it up open your eyes, learn a few things. no one became safer with Sudaam gone if thats true, we still would'nt be losing an average of 3 american soldiers everyday. its all coming back to haunt USA and CIA for putting him in power anyways.
-
no one became safer with Sudaam gone if thats true, we still would'nt be losing an average of 3 american soldiers everyday. its all coming back to haunt USA and CIA for putting him in power anyways.
Last time i checked 1 soldier a day is killed in Iraq. Last time I checked the USA and CIA never put Saddam in power in the first place.
So we switched
our "main" reason for going there. So why didn't we hold any grudges before he nationalized the oil fields? In case you're wondering, he's always been a ruthless leader, so please answer that Sherlock (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, since you're probably too dumb to figure even that out)
Could you re-phrase that question please?
-
This whole interview as well as this thread is useless. Nobody's learning anything or changing minds. Moore believes one way, people support him, and O'Reilly believes another way, and people support him. There's no use in arguing about it, nobody's looking to learn, all they're looking to do is defend their position. Fuck that, it's a waste of time.
In this situation, definitely
-
no one became safer with Sudaam gone if thats true, we still would'nt be losing an average of 3 american soldiers everyday. its all coming back to haunt USA and CIA for putting him in power anyways.
Last time i checked 1 soldier a day is killed in Iraq. Last time I checked the USA and CIA never put Saddam in power in the first place.
So we switched
our "main" reason for going there. So why didn't we hold any grudges before he nationalized the oil fields? In case you're wondering, he's always been a ruthless leader, so please answer that Sherlock (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, since you're probably too dumb to figure even that out)
Could you re-phrase that question please?
First of all, when was the last time you checked who put Saddam in power? Do you not know that the CIA helped Saddam gain the power to become leader of Iraq, the U.S. WANTED Saddam to become leader of Iraq because the previous leader chose to nationalize the oil fields, which angered the U.S.
And NO, I can't rephrase that question. If what I say goes way over your head, just say so.
-
First of all, when was the last time you checked who put Saddam in power?
Yesterday
Do you not know that the CIA helped Saddam gain the power to become leader of Iraq, the U.S. WANTED Saddam to become leader of Iraq because the previous leader chose to nationalize the oil fields, which angered the U.S.
You got proof?
And NO, I can't rephrase that question. If what I say goes way over your head, just say so.
OK, then don't rephrase the question.
-
First of all, when was the last time you checked who put Saddam in power?
Yesterday
Do you not know that the CIA helped Saddam gain the power to become leader of Iraq, the U.S. WANTED Saddam to become leader of Iraq because the previous leader chose to nationalize the oil fields, which angered the U.S.
You got proof?
And NO, I can't rephrase that question. If what I say goes way over your head, just say so.
OK, then don't rephrase the question.
1. I shouldn't have asked you when you checked because knowing you, I highly doubt that you would even be able to comprehend something this complex... in your standards of course.
2. Yes, once again I can show you.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
If you have any trouble reading or understanding that, let me know and I'll be glad to help.
3. What's the point of rephrasing if you won't even be able to answer it?!
-
Again I have to wonder why yall are arguing. You're wasting your breath, you'd be better off talking to people who actually don't know what's going on, or haven't already made their mind up about this stuff.
-
you'd be better off talking to people who actually don't know what's going on
That's exactly what I'm doing. :)
-
2. Yes, once again I can show you.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
If you have any trouble reading or understanding that, let me know and I'll be glad to help.
Thats not fact. Thats conpiracy shit. Fuck that, im not even gunna waste my time
-
2. Yes, once again I can show you.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
If you have any trouble reading or understanding that, let me know and I'll be glad to help.
Thats not fact. Thats conpiracy shit. Fuck that, im not even gunna waste my time
Nice argument. ::)
LOL, RETARD, YOU SHOULD'VE LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO NOT TO TRY TO STEP UP TO SOMEONE WHO'S OBVIOUSLY WAY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SHIT. STEP DOWN AND LEARN YOUR PLACE.
-
Nice argument. ::)
LOL, RETARD, YOU SHOULD'VE LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO NOT TO TRY TO STEP UP TO SOMEONE WHO'S OBVIOUSLY WAY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SHIT. STEP DOWN AND LEARN YOUR PLACE.
I'm only 14 you know so take it lightly, i haven't even finshed high school, do you expect me to know all this shit. For someone my age, people consider me knowledgeable about foreign affairs and politics.
Saddam got into power because President al-Bakr gradually withdrew from politics during the 1970s and formally retired in 1979. Hussein( who was vice-chairman) became chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and president of the country.
-
Nice argument. ::)
LOL, RETARD, YOU SHOULD'VE LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO NOT TO TRY TO STEP UP TO SOMEONE WHO'S OBVIOUSLY WAY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SHIT. STEP DOWN AND LEARN YOUR PLACE.
I'm only 14 you know so take it lightly, i haven't even finshed high school, do you expect me to know all this shit. For someone my age, people consider me knowledgeable about foreign affairs and politics.
Saddam got into power because President al-Bakr gradually withdrew from politics during the 1970s and formally retired in 1979. Hussein( who was vice-chairman) became chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and president of the country.
LOLLLL.... So you admit that you don't know shit, and then you come back with another statement trying to argue. So you don't believe CIA officials when they say that they helped Saddam because the U.S. was trying to prevent Communist influence in Iraq? In case you didn't know, the same thing happened in Afghanistan... we supported the country against the Russians, it's a known fact. Why do you try to argue against facts?
-
[quote author=Maradona link=topic=55895.msg626505#msg626505 date=1091076806
LOLLLL.... So you admit that you don't know shit, and then you come back with another statement trying to argue. So you don't believe CIA officials when they say that they helped Saddam because the U.S. was trying to prevent Communist influence in Iraq? In case you didn't know, the same thing happened in Afghanistan... we supported the country against the Russians, it's a known fact. Why do you try to argue against facts?
I didn't admit i don't know shit. Some stuff i haven't learned yet. Some stuff I'm learning, like what your telling me now.
OK, so the CIA helped Saddam to prevent a Communist Influence -- But that doesn't mean the US helped Saddam become a evil dictator and shit. Same thing wit the Afghans.
-
[quote author=Maradona link=topic=55895.msg626505#msg626505 date=1091076806
LOLLLL.... So you admit that you don't know shit, and then you come back with another statement trying to argue. So you don't believe CIA officials when they say that they helped Saddam because the U.S. was trying to prevent Communist influence in Iraq? In case you didn't know, the same thing happened in Afghanistan... we supported the country against the Russians, it's a known fact. Why do you try to argue against facts?
I didn't admit i don't know shit. Some stuff i haven't learned yet. Some stuff I'm learning, like what your telling me now.
OK, so the CIA helped Saddam to prevent a Communist Influence -- But that doesn't mean the US helped Saddam become a evil dictator and shit. Same thing wit the Afghans.
LMFAO. I never said they helped him become EVIL. They brought him to power. He started killing people. The U.S. didn't care because he was helping us meet other goals. When he nationalized the Iraqi oil fields, then the U.S. cared and labeled him an evil dictator even though he was evil before the nationalization of the oil fields. The rest is history... (Iran/Iraq war, Gulf War, the present...)
-
LMFAO. I never said they helped him become EVIL. They brought him to power. He started killing people. The U.S. didn't care because he was helping us meet other goals. When he nationalized the Iraqi oil fields, then the U.S. cared and labeled him an evil dictator even though he was evil before the nationalization of the oil fields. The rest is history... (Iran/Iraq war, Gulf War, the present...)
I would of done the same. If i was getting oil from a country, then the country says "oh we are going to nationalize our oil fields" then i would i would be pist tell the truth about the country.
-
LMFAO. I never said they helped him become EVIL. They brought him to power. He started killing people. The U.S. didn't care because he was helping us meet other goals. When he nationalized the Iraqi oil fields, then the U.S. cared and labeled him an evil dictator even though he was evil before the nationalization of the oil fields. The rest is history... (Iran/Iraq war, Gulf War, the present...)
I would of done the same. If i was getting oil from a country, then the country says "oh we are going to nationalize our oil fields" then i would i would be pist tell the truth about the country.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with a country nationalizing its own land. Secondly, you are basically saying that the U.S. turns a blind eye as long as its gaining something financially, which is exactly the point I was making. Thank you, you are now dismissed.
-
Ronald Reagan was willing to do anything to stop comunism, including funding saddam and taliban.
-
damn Maradona jus keeps eating Mach. lololol gotta luv it
-
Ronald Reagan was willing to do anything to stop comunism, including funding saddam and taliban.
LMFAO. This just further proves that you're an idiot who talks out of his ass without knowing a damn thing. Seriously, you don't know shit. The Taliban emerged in 1994... the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989.... Reagan wasn't even president at the time the Taliban entered Afghanistan... OWNED BITCH!
-
ben aflack
-
ben aflack
Is this in response to anything?
-
Damn BIll O punked more on the Lying thing, you could tell moore was too fulll of pride to agree with Bill, but then he came back with the "would you send your child to secure falluja" , but bill got him at the end...my card is Bill 2 Mike 1
they need to make a full length featured "documentary" with them just arguing points, that'd be a REAL fair and balanced doc. Bill O'riley the ultra conservative and Michael Moore the ultra Liberal.
-
Ronald Reagan was willing to do anything to stop comunism, including funding saddam and taliban.
here do some more reaserch on the...
Taliban - Beacuse the taliban didnt Emerge intil 1993/1994 at the time clinton was president not reagon.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html
-
Ronald Reagan was willing to do anything to stop comunism, including funding saddam and taliban.
here do some more reaserch on the...
Taliban - Beacuse the taliban didnt Emerge intil 1993/1994 at the time clinton was president not reagon.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html
The Taliban movement emerged out of the chaos and uncertainty of the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989) and subsequent civil war in Afghanistan. During the 1980s Afghanistan was occupied by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and ruled by a Soviet-backed government. Afghanistan’s long war with the USSR was largely fought by mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla) factions with assistance from the United States; Pakistan also provided places of refuge, military training, and other support. After the Soviets completed their withdrawal in 1989, civil war broke out between the mujahideen factions and the central government. Afghanistan’s central government had long been dominated by the country’s majority ethnic group, the Pashtuns, but after the Soviet withdrawal a coalition government that included Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and other minority groups came to power. The Taliban emerged as a faction of mujahideen soldiers who identified themselves as religious students.
uhm during clinton?
-
uhm during clinton?
Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist movement in Afghanistan that controlled most of the country from September 1996 to November 2001. The Taliban movement was created in 1994 by a senior mullah (Islamic priest), Mohammed Omar, in the southern Afghanistan city of Kandahār.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html
-
Taliban was created in 94, they took the capital by 95.
Reagan assisted the mujahideen, some of whom later joined the Taliban among this great hoopla called civil war. The mujahidden fought in the 80s
-
Taliban was created in 94, they took the capital by 95.
Reagan assisted the mujahideen, some of whom later joined the Taliban among this great hoopla called civil war. The mujahidden fought in the 80s
True, but the Taliban took the capital in September 96. And yes Reagon assited Mujahideen to fight the USSR in the 80s
-
Ronald Reagan was willing to do anything to stop comunism, including funding saddam and taliban.
LMFAO. This just further proves that you're an idiot who talks out of his ass without knowing a damn thing. Seriously, you don't know shit. The Taliban emerged in 1994... the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989.... Reagan wasn't even president at the time the Taliban entered Afghanistan... OWNED BITCH!
Ronald Reagan was willing to do anything to stop comunism, including funding saddam and taliban.
here do some more reaserch on the...
Taliban - Beacuse the taliban didnt Emerge intil 1993/1994 at the time clinton was president not reagon.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html
If you can't beam 'em, join 'em. You will be a lot better off hanging on my nuts; wise choice. 8)
-
lol dude relax, just give me your point, ill give you mine.
it exactly was not the taliban at the time no shit, but it was future members of the taliban. Same ideas
-
lol dude relax, just give me your point, ill give you mine.
it exactly was not the taliban at the time no shit, but it was future members of the taliban. Same ideas
LOL, I was talking to Machiavelli, the guy who doesn't know shit but keeps rambling on with his nonsense.
By the way, only a small proportion of Taliban members were actually part of the mujahideen in prior years. Most of them were Afghan refugees and orphans, who were raised in Pakistan and taught in madrasas (religious schools). They were later aided by Pakistani and American intelligence.
-
Reagan funded a group of (afghanis?) to fight a resistance against comunism back during his term....who became the taliban.
-
lol dude relax, just give me your point, ill give you mine.
it exactly was not the taliban at the time no shit, but it was future members of the taliban. Same ideas
LOL, I was talking to Machiavelli, the guy who doesn't know shit but keeps rambling on with his nonsense.
By the way, only a small proportion of Taliban members were actually part of the mujahideen in prior years. Most of them were Afghan refugees and orphans, who were raised in Pakistan and taught in madrasas (religious schools). They were later aided by Pakistani and American intelligence.
lol dont trip i was not talking to you, i was talking to the same person
-
ben aflack
Is this in response to anything?
nope.. its just the only part i saw, AFLACK
-
Reagan funded a group of (afghanis?) to fight a resistance against comunism back during his term....who became the taliban.
theres not even any proof they became the taliban.. its just a logical jump...
its like saying... someone funded some shit in LA.. then when in new york something happens 10 years later its the same people..