HaqDiesel Wrote:
Quote:
we should hold saudi arabia more responsible for 9/11 than we do iraq (who we should not at all as has been proven by the 9/11 commission)
if we were actually combating terror, and those who harbor terrorism, we would have gone nuts on saudi arabia. IT WAS THEIR CITIZENS WHO KILLED AMERICAN ON 9/11. at least more than were from any other single country.
we didn't b/c bush and his family has too much invested in saudi wealth and too many common interests.
that's what he was trying to prove, and that's the truth.
if i'm mistaken in any of my facts, please let me know where.
If 18 American citizens went to Canada of their own volition and were trained by people living and operating in Canada with the cooperation or under the blind eye of the Canadian government, and then attacked, say, England, would England then be justified in "go[ing] nuts on" the US as having harbored terrorists?
i'm not saying i support or believe in it, but by george bush's doctrines, yes they could. it's fucking stupid but we've gone and set the precedent. it would be right for england to be upset at the united states and canada in the new world order. Should Britain then go and attack Mexico just because they happen to be nearby and are an easier target?
Quote:
Just because Michael Moore can identify that people involved in the attack once lived in SA doesn't mean that he's indicted the US of going after the wrong guy.
well i guess i miswatched the movie then b/c that's what i got out of it. and i'm not going to rewatch it, it's drivel.
Quote:
One major distinction is that, whatever you think of the Saudis, the US had generally good relations with them, certainly in comparison to Iraq and what the Taliban government had become. It's certainly conceivable that that diplomatic solutions were a lot easier with the Saudis after 9/11.
True, but it still doesn't explain why we went into Iraq, which obviously is linked to 9/11 in a lot of people's minds even though no link exists. Even if Michael Moore isn't saying it, Kerry has, and the idea is that we are attacking "Terror" in the wrong places.
Quote:
Did the 9/11 commission report that Moore's holding up on the poster show any evidence that the Saudis were harboring terrorists involved with planning 9/11 when the attack happened?
i don't know, i haven't read the entire 9/11 report. it just seems like whether or not they lived in saudi arabiaduring their actual planning or training is irrelevant under the terrible precedent that we've established. if you "harbor" terrorists, we come get you. we accused saddam or doing that so we went after him. the point is then, why don't we go after saudi arabia where you can clearly make these ties? it would seem that we've done things more diplomatically with them and it worked.
we could have been diplomatic with saddam. if anything, what we are learning now is that sanctions work and did work with him. he had no weapons of mass destruction. yeah, there was mass corruption with oil for food and he was an asshole but does that mean we should invade him? we only did b/c we knew we could defeat him easily, whereas north korea would drop a nuke on our asses.
if saddam did have wmd, wouldn't he have used them after gwb made his initial threat on national television?
Quote:
Moore's Saudi fetish is a red herring, and a poorly-supported one. Perhaps he wasn't saying that Bush was responsible for 9/11, but whatever he's saying is weak, at least in relation to the Saudis.
well that goes for whatever moore says.