ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch they are both important because in both instances, peoples freedoms are being impaired, it was just very easy to gather support for Iraq By using fear and lies to cooerce the populace to support it. Which is really a pretty TERRIBLE way to govern people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Exactly @ Sith. America only does something when they feel it's in their best interest. If it doesn't concern them they don't give a ****. I'd hate it if my local police thought like that. "some guy robbed my house so I rounded up the other cops and we shot him" "good work, but what about that guy down the street who got robbed by some other guy" "what do I care about that? It's not my problem" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lynk Former Exactly @ Sith. America only does something when they feel it's in their best interest. If it doesn't concern them they don't give a ****. I'd hate it if my local police thought like that. "some guy robbed my house so I rounded up the other cops and we shot him" "good work, but what about that guy down the street who got robbed by some other guy" "what do I care about that? It's not my problem" america does need to improve, but Bush is on the right track. If i was president, i would remove ALL evil dictators from power, and replace them with somethign useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 But you know you can't do that. It's not as simple as that and if they're making you think it is then you'll believe anything. Just because you remove one badguy doesn't mean you've stopped it completely. Someone will take their place and will most likely be worse than the last. There will always be bad guys and people who are against the values of someone else. The position America is putting itself into is no better than the terrorists. They attack, you attack, they attack, you attack. And in the middle are people who just want to live but they can't since so many of them are being killed for "the greater good" of both sides beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 The most likelym reason Bush invaded Iraq, was for the oil. In fact, the Bush family has ties with the bin Laden family. Bush also let the bin Laden family fly away when they should have been questioned by authorities. You can't say we went to Iraq "to free the people." There are other countries that are suffering more than Iraq. You can;t say we went to Iraq because of "WMDs." None were found. If Bush was going to invade a country because they have "WMDs," he might as well invaded Korea or some other country that actually have "WMDs" and are a bigger threat. Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch america does need to improve, but Bush is on the right track. If i was president, i would remove ALL evil dictators from power, and replace them with somethign useful Good luck with that, and your Presidency. You'll be at it for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 i said BUSH IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK, which means, it isn't great yet, but he's getting the hang of it. When i Lynk, i said, i would REPLACE the rulers i removed from power, not allow someone to take there place. and it is very easy to kill every ruler in the world, so that wouldn't be the problem. and thank you lynk, for proving my point, that there will always be opression, and it is up to every living human to protect the freedoms of other. america has the resources to do that, thus, we are morally obligated to do it. whether or not any other country agrees with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I think everyone here (who haven't) should see Fahreheit 9/11. Before you say it's all propaganda, it is backed up with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak I think everyone here (who haven't) should see Fahreheit 9/11. Before you say it's all propaganda, it is backed up with facts. cough cough, you should see the michael moore episode of the o'reilly factor, that gives moore's "facts" and tears them apart with moore not knowing anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch cough cough, you should see the michael moore episode of the o'reilly factor, that gives moore's "facts" and tears them apart with moore not knowing anything Because the O'Reilly Factor is every bit as non-partisan and unbiased as Michael Moore's documentaries..... Most of the things I've seen that "prove" that Moore is not truthful are pretty weak and unsubstantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Yeah, from a transcript I read of the episode... it was pretty pathetic. From foxnews.com Moore, the director who made "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) and created one of the election season's biggest uproars, said he wouldn't go on "The O'Reilly Factor" until O'Reilly saw the entire movie. And he said any conversation would have to be aired without any editing and with the opportunity for Moore to ask O'Reilly questions. All of the demands were met and Moore sat down with O'Reilly in the FOX News skybox high about the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Following is the full transcript of their meeting: MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: That’s fair. We’ll just stick to the issues. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The issues… all right 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 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later? MOORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction. O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by — all of those investigations come to the same conclusion. That’s not a lie. MOORE: Uh huh. So, in other words, if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage… O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth. MOORE: 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'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing: If you, if Michael Moore is president… MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie? I show all that in the movie. O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine… MOORE: But that was your question… O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. 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… MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test… O'REILLY: All right, now you’re dancing around a question… MOORE: No, I’m not. There’s no dancing. O'REILLY: He didn’t lie. MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true. O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources. MOORE: 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'REILLY: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too. MOORE: 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'REILLY: You’re diverting the issue… did you read Woodward’s book? MOORE: No, I haven’t read his book. O'REILLY: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right? MOORE: I know who he is. O'REILLY: 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? MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job. O'REILLY: I agree. Tenet was fired. MOORE: 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'REILLY: Nobody disputes that... MOORE: 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'REILLY: 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. MOORE: 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'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie. MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that? O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie. MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that… O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question… MOORE: “Mom and Dad it was just bad information…” O'REILLY: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie. Go ahead. MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question. O'REILLY: OK. MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents? O'REILLY: 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.” MOORE: But what were they killed for? O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people. MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war: to remove a brutal dictator. O'REILLY: Well, we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction. MOORE: But that was the reason… O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction… MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat… O'REILLY: That’s right. MOORE: And there was no threat, was there? O'REILLY: It was a mistake. MOORE: 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'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents. MOORE: So we agree on that. O'REILLY: But that is the historical nature of what happened. MOORE: 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'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional. MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake. O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that. MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead. O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that. MOORE: So, that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake — how would you feel towards me O'REILLY: OK, now we are wandering. MOORE: No, but my point is… O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question. MOORE: But why? What did they die for? O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people… MOORE: No, that was not the reason… O'REILLY: That’s what they died for… MOORE: …they were given… O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake. MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world… O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question… MOORE: 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'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were. MOORE: You would sacrifice your child? O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you? MOORE: Uh huh. O'REILLY: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban? MOORE: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil. O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban. MOORE: But we didn’t go after them, did we? O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda. MOORE: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there. O'REILLY: OK, well look you can’t kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan — you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you? MOORE: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people. O'REILLY: How? MOORE: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was… O'REILLY: Why was that? MOORE: That’s my question. O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated. MOORE: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two-month head start. O'REILLY: All right, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government? MOORE: No, unless it is a threat to us. O'REILLY: 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? MOORE: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States. O'REILLY: From '33 until '41, he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States. MOORE: There’s a lot of things we should have done. O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him. MOORE: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power. O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore. You would have invaded. MOORE: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, whoa, I’m trying to stop this war right now. O'REILLY: I know you are but… MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war? O'REILLY: No, we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to… MOORE: So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that. O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.. MOORE: Your child? It’s Bush sending the children there. O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself. MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old… O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it. MOORE: Say, “I, Bill O’Reilly, would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah.” O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous… MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this? O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you — MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq? O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq. MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here? O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don’t you know anything about any of that? MOORE: So, you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what? O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long. MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein. O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media. MOORE: Now come on. O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there. MOORE: How do you know that? O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there. MOORE: How do you know that? O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him. MOORE: 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'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that. MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe. O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed. MOORE: The people rose up. O'REILLY: Why? Because they went bankrupt. MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up… O'REILLY: All right, all right. MOORE: …that’s how you, let me ask you this question. O'REILLY: One more. MOORE: 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'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam… MOORE: Why didn’t they rise up? O'REILLY: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off… MOORE: Well that’s true in many countries throughout the world… O'REILLY: It is, it’s a shame… MOORE: …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'REILLY: 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? MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would? O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself. MOORE: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah? O'REILLY: I would. MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now? O'REILLY: That’s right. MOORE: Where’s the recruiter? O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me. MOORE: No, I want you to live. I want you to live. O'REILLY: I appreciate that Michael Moore everybody. There he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch and thank you lynk, for proving my point, that there will always be opression, and it is up to every living human to protect the freedoms of other. america has the resources to do that, thus, we are morally obligated to do it. whether or not any other country agrees with it Wow your view on this is so twisted it's not funny. I seriously wish I was on another planet right now away from America cause the leaders of that country are going to be the end of us all. How can humans protect humans when your countries leaders want to use violence to solve their problems. We've said it a million times over, you will never achieve peace with war, the only thing war will bring is more war. The reason there will always be opression is the fact that humans are stuck in this cycle of war. It is the quick and easy path (sounds familiar?...) to whatever problem is there at the time. Instead of a peaceful solution, which obviously DOES to take and a lot of effort, your government chose to just go in there and shoot some people and say it's for the good of mankind. Now how is shooting another man going to help us at all? Do you know that the side you're fighting against also sees themselves as being morally obligated to do what they are doing. Both sides believe they are the good guy and both sides have some moral value they are basing their beliefs on. Both sides are using violence to solve their problems... Your side, whatever side that may be, is no better than the side you're fighting against which is why a lot of people don't want to be involved with such bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Wow, O'reilly really proved Moore wrong. "The president didn't lie" "yes he did" "no he didn't" End of debate. And Lynk words that very well. It seems amazing to me how civilized we see ourselves, especially when we compare ourselves to third world countries. But we're no different. We are pretentious and full of ourselves, but we're every bit as bad as anyone, when we choose war over negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 i never have said war will lead to peace. People are just so pwer hungry that there will always be war. To explain better what i meant when i said that the way to save humans is to kill human: when you go to war to stop an evil and oppressive regime, you will kill many soldier and many innocents. But you have to ask yourself, "how many more people will die if we don't remove this regime" that in itself is justification to go to war with any oppressive regime. you will lose many lives, but will save more than you kill. The war with oppressive regimes is similar to the Atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in WW2, necessary evil to stop/prevent a greater evil. Moore said the president lied. He didn't, he acted on fase information, which is not lying in itself. Thus, Moore lied. Thus, we can't believe Moore. Thus, there is no reason to watch F911 because it is a truly biased movie. Thus, [mind trick] WATCH O'REILLY FACTOR [/mind trick] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch Moore said the president lied. He didn't, he acted on fase information, which is not lying in itself. Thus, Moore lied. Thus, we can't believe Moore. Thus, there is no reason to watch F911 because it is a truly biased movie. Of COURSE it is biased, everyone who sees it knows that it's biased, but the bias it uses to spin the facts it presents does not CHANGE the fact that it is presenting factual evidence that many people are unwilling to believe or accept. And I think, if the president of the United States TOLD us that Iraq had WMD's and there are NOT WMD's, then even if he was only acting on bad information, it is his DUTY to inform us that he goofed, because as long as he refuses to admit that he was wrong he CONTINUES to lie to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Of course the movie is biased. It's bashing Bush and his entire term as President, but it doesn't change the fact that what's said in the movie is backed up with facts. Most smart people realize that it's biased and are able to see past it. Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch Moore said the president lied. He didn't, he acted on fase information, which is not lying in itself. Thus, Moore lied. Thus, we can't believe Moore. Thus, there is no reason to watch F911 because it is a truly biased movie. Thus, [mind trick] WATCH O'REILLY FACTOR [/mind trick] Dude, you are so locked up in your little bubble. The president may have acted on false information, but he still needs to say he was wrong. As he continues to not admit it, he continues to lie. "It takes a boy to make a mistake, but a man to fix it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak Of course the movie is biased. It's bashing Bush and his entire term as President, but it doesn't change the fact that what's said in the movie is backed up with facts. Most smart people realize that it's biased and are able to see past it. Dude, you are so locked up in your little bubble. The president may have acted on false information, but he still needs to say he was wrong. As he continues to not admit it, he continues to lie. "It takes a boy to make a mistake, but a man to fix it." he was not wrong is the thing... he was not wrong to act upon information given to him by his advisors. his advisors were wrong, but he did nothing wrong. Now, a movie you all need to see, as i think it is a good solution to everything, is Team America: world police BTW, does anyone know when the Anti-F911 movie is coming out?? And bush didn't make a mistake, it is not a mistake to follow the advice of your advisors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 You do realize Team America is a satire on the war on terror that is basically criticizing the Bush admin, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 actually, it is a satire on the war on terror, but criticizes everything. absolutely everything political. But it supports my ideology of the war on terror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch Now, a movie you all need to see, as i think it is a good solution to everything, is Team America: world police BTW, does anyone know when the Anti-F911 movie is coming out?? I.....what? You actually took that movie seriously enough to think that they were presenting GOOD ideas? They were making FUN of AMERICAN POLICY, in particular the war on terror.... And if you're talking about fahrenhype 9-11 then it's already out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 the anti-kerry video comes out sometime before the election. I don't remember when. Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch But it supports my ideology of the war on terror that we send puppets into afghanistan? way ahead of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 dorks... anyway, thanks for the update on the anti-farenheit 9-11 movie insanesith TAWP did mock american policy, and it mocked the american public, and it mocked everything else. However, i think it brought up a good point that we do need a strike force like TAWP that is allowed to make unprecedented strikes against terrorist organizations at will, without the consent of the public or the UN, or anything else for that matter, they did what needed to be done. And yes, it mocked american policy, and yes, i will mock american policy, because we are not to a level of anti-terrorism that we should be, bush is headed in the right direction, but needs some encouragement to force it along a little better, kerry would be backtracking, and most of the other candidates would simply ruin the idea of anti-terrorism and freeing peoples from oppressive government. The biggest reason to vote bush is his stance on the war in iraq and the war on terror, those two things are the most important things in america, they represent our freedom. If we simply fall back, or ease off, we are asking all those millions of american soldiers who have diedfor our freedom to, instead, just be dead people. We will be backtracking upon their efforts. Too many people have died to give us our freedom, too many have suffered. We shall not back down from a fight, we shall not back down from those who oppress freedom. We will not let terrorism and anti-american, anti-freedom ideology to go unopposed. If we do that, we are turning our backs on our soldiers, soldiers past, soldiers present, and soldiers future. We do not appreciate what they have, do , and will do enough as it is, let's not make matters worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 dorks... excuse me? *deletes rant which is way too long* We will not let terrorism and anti-american, anti-freedom ideology to go unopposed. Terrorism, obviously none of us like. Anti-Americanism you're just going to have to live with, otherwise you might as well nuke Australia. Anti-freedom?... That's rich coming from a country which to me doesn't seem very free compared to Australia, in all seriousness it really does look like people down here have more rights than the people living in America. Another thing that America is doing which is pissing off the rest of the world is forcing American ideology upon the rest of the world. We do not have the same ideas as the people of America do. Each country works differently and the peoples of those countries think differently, which is why there is so much opposition towards what America is doing. Like Australia, our history is very different from yours, for instance, we have no gun culture and guns really weren't that much of a part of our culture which is why few of us have guns and the ones who do have them illegally or have them for sporting reasons. There are many more differences between our countries and other countries and the idea of this forcing of American ideology upon us really gets to us. This is why there is such an anti-american feeling around the world, not just in the middle-east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 But.....you're taking the satire of the movie and running in the COMPLETE OPPOSITE direction that the writers intended.... They aren't mocking American policy for NOT having a Team America, they're mocking America for trying to be the world police........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior America for trying to be the world police........ That disturbs me the most, America trying to be the world police *shudders* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 doesn't someone need to be a world police? and i understand that TAWP was mocking america trying to be world police, but I AM SAYING we need a team america Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.