It's because Fahrenheit 9/11 is just like ANY other film. You don't review a film you haven't seen if you just went online and read the scene by scene review. You have to see it. It's for EVERY film. -Pat

last time i checked, these were political debates where the "you're narrow-minded because you haven't seen the film" comments were slung out, not film reviews. if you're going to use a movie as your back-up in a debate, then i'm going to question the political aspect of it, not it's artistic significance.

Your question on the political aspect of that movie is next to useless if you haven't seen it. -Pat

see my first post. :rolleyes:

..and see my reply.

This has NOTHING to do with art, film or anything of the sort. This is a political clash. If one reads Moore's articles and opinions that are presented in the film even if they did not see the film, they have all the right to debate it. So what if they miss the comic relief or whatever the hell else is in it? It's the politics they are debating.

Go Ahead and question it. That's you right. But until you guys find factual information to document that Michael Moore made False statements in his film, then don't say it's false, ESPECIALLY if you have not seen it. You don't even know what your claiming to be false! American media can only go so far into talking about the film on T.V. and the facts in it. Just see the damn thing and make a judgement for yourself. Don't rely on your right-wing independant newspaper or website for info on Fahrenheit 9/11. Your word means bupkiss. I am using Moore's film as a jumping off point in my debate, as well as a work of art. Because it is both. It clearly has something good going on if it won the Palm D'or.

Doctor Ferro

pat -- as i've said, his opinions and theories have been plastered everywhere. in a political debate, i do not need to see the film to know what he believes. for a film review? of course. for a political debate where we're arguing facts? i don't have to see what i already know about.

ferro -- his own contradictons tell me he's a lying sack of shit. first we sent too many troops to afghanistan, then we were wrong to send any at all (the latter was moore's view as late as 2002), then we sent too few. first osama should be "innocent until proven guilty," then he believes he's guilty as sin. the man contradicts himself left and right. do i put any credibility in the hands of someone like that? absolutely not.

and you tell me not to assume anything about a film i haven't seen -- yet you jump the gun and assume i get my info from "right wing newspapers." those kind of accusations only work against you.

and it won the palm d'or because of it's artistic aspect -- he did a helluva job lying. does that mean it's all truth? no. does the fact people thought it was beautiful piece of art mean it should be used as leverage in political debates? no.

Michael Moore has the same viewpoint as Kerry: We were told Iraq was a grave danger to our country with its chemical weapons and weapons of mass distruction and links to Al-queida.
None of which are true. Most Americans believed our leader, it's what we are supposed to do. But then when Bush's lies started to pile up and prove false, we were against the war. Everyone's opinion on the war has changed because of Bush lies. Sure, if my president said a country had WMD and links to a group that killed 3,000 innocent Americans, I would say something needed to be done and I would support action. But when I find out I was lied to, I change my mind.

I assume you read factually wrong papers because there is nothing on credible websites with proof Moore Definetely lied.

Again with the accusations of lies in the film. The movie won the award because it presented the viewpoint of one man in a beautiful and entertaining fashion. If he wants to take his factually accurate movie and use it as an item in his debates, he has every right. You don't have to like his film, you don't even have to see it, but you can't bash it without proof of lies IN the film.

Doctor Ferro

hm, funny, kerry and bush both read from the same intelligence. :rolleyes:

we weren't lied to when we were told we were in danger. look at what happened during 9/11. look at all the innocent people tortured in iraq. listen to fucking saddam boast of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in israel. baghdad was for years the home address of abu nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death and had blown up airports in vienna and rome. the iraqi secret police were caught trying to kill our former president bush during his visit to kuwait. now, forget whether george w. should take that personally, (though why should he not?)... but, should you and i not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives?

should i go on?

you preach that there's no proof the movie is false... yet, what proof do you have it's true? because moore says so? "just because your right wing websites proclaim he's lying, doesn't mean he is." (even though i don't even visit right wing websites, but let's be hypothetical here.) the same can be directed at you -- just because mr. moore claims everything he boasts is true, doesn't mean it is. the clips of video used in moore's movie are out of context -- he uses specific clips to make it fit with the script that aren't necessarily correct.

Michael Moore has the same viewpoint as Kerry: We were told Iraq was a grave danger to our country with its chemical weapons and weapons of mass distruction and links to Al-queida.
None of which are true. Most Americans believed our leader, it's what we are supposed to do. But then when Bush's lies started to pile up and prove false, we were against the war. Everyone's opinion on the war has changed because of Bush lies. Sure, if my president said a country had WMD and links to a group that killed 3,000 innocent Americans, I would say something needed to be done and I would support action. But when I find out I was lied to, I change my mind.

I assume you read factually wrong papers because there is nothing on credible websites with proof Moore Definetely lied.

Again with the accusations of lies in the film. The movie won the award because it presented the viewpoint of one man in a beautiful and entertaining fashion. If he wants to take his factually accurate movie and use it as an item in his debates, he has every right. You don't have to like his film, you don't even have to see it, but you can't bash it without proof of lies IN the film.

Doctor Ferro [/b][/quote]You're the man, Don Ferro.

Kerry and Bush both read from the same intelligence. Correct. Intelligence that was given to Bush by the people he pays to get it. There's not one person on here who wouldn't have voted to go to Iraq if they had read that Iraq had WMDs. I could careless about Saddam being in power. Bush told us that Saddam had WMDs and was going to use them against us. He LIED to us. His administration SCREWED up and WON'T admit it.

Innocent people in Iraq?!?! 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by us! Afgahnistan's people were tortured MUCH more. They had beheadings as Sunday events for Christ's sakes. We're pulling troops OUT of Afgahnistan and putting MORE into Iraq when we have accomplished no goals in Afgahnistan. We don't have Osama.

Donald Rumsfeld MET with Saddam Hussein in 1983. He MET with the guy! He shook his hand. Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family invested in George Bush's businesses in Texas!

On September 13th, 2001 when ALL flights were cancelled, the Bush administration and White House both allowed 113 Saudi Arabians, over 2 dozen of which were Bin Laden's family, to leave the US. Yeh, our President sure wants us safe. Hell, he voted for a 33 % DECREASE in pay for soldiers in our military. What a great guy. If he gets 4 more years, we're going to have everyone on this planet against us. -Pat

Though you would never believe these facts, they are 100% true. The facts here are backed up by unbiased news organizations. Just give them a little glance. The Movie Is True.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

pat, are you illiterate? do you comprehend the logics of reading? or are you just ignorant?

you (supposedly) read posts of mine either stating or implying i do not believe a word michael moore says, then you continue to lambaste me with non-sense half-truths from fahrenheit 9/11 and michael moore himself. what in the statement "i do not believe a word moore says" are you not understanding?

you expect me to retort a non-sense post with dozens of michael moore-spewed lies -- when you, yourself ignored the facts i posted refuting the basis and theory that saddam hussien wasn't a threat to the united states, argued and believed by michael moore, himself.

ferro -- of course when conservatives say that moore lies in his film, we aren't being completely, 100% literal. he exaggerates and relishes in half-truths. for example, the bullshit about bush allowing bin laden family members to leave the country after 9/11. between michael moore's triumph at the cannes film festival and the release of fahrenheit 9/11 in the united states, the 9/11 commission had found richard clarke, bush's former chief of counterterrorism, had come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those saudi departures. even though clarke is presented in fahrenheit 9/11 as the ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. and it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the bin laden family evacuation, clarke is taking a fall for the bush administration.

moore shows you these "truths," but doesn't show you the other half -- which disproves his entire theory. bush didn't gently and eagerly release bin laden members from the united states, rather it wasn't even his error -- it was clarke's. that's another bust for this bloated "key to all mythologies."

that's all. i'm done here. it's like beating a dead horse. maybe i'll check back tomorrow.

Hey guys,
Just thought you might want to take a look at this. This is Mike at MSU. I am in the front row, but unable to see because I am right behind the podium. This gives you an idea of where I was.




This was the car driving around in front. Hilarious.

An insult. I included a mere 2 facts from Fahrenheit 9/11 in my post. I love it. One proves a conservative wrong and they can't reply with a direct answer because they haven't seen what one of the subjects was. Hahaha.

after totally ignoring some solid facts about saddam being threat to the united states -- which disproves what moore seems to believe so vividly against -- you ignore these facts, and post some more half-truths from someone i had just finished stating i do not believe. moore has no credibility, and i brought up three or four facts where he completely contradicted himself. one has to believe you're either illiterate or ignorant if you completely push that aside and post some more bullshit by him. i didn't sling a child-like insult, like "bitch" or "motherfucker" (which you're known for); i used an adjective that describes a something that you did or didn't do. if you wanna try and label it as an insult to try to make yourself look above me (even though we all know about your insult tirades), then go right ahead. if you wanna ignore the facts and post some more "LOL!!!1" posts, then go right ahead. if you wanna make yourself look more like a fool, go right ahead. but, boy, am i glad people like you aren't allowed to vote yet. :rolleyes:

after totally ignoring some solid facts about saddam being threat to the united states -- which disproves what moore seems to believe so vividly against -- you ignore these facts, and post some more half-truths from someone i had just finished stating i do not believe. moore has no credibility, and i brought up three or four facts where he completely contradicted himself. one has to believe you're either illiterate or ignorant if you completely push that aside and post some more bullshit by him. i didn't sling a child-like insult, like "bitch" or "motherfucker" (which you're known for); i used an adjective that describes a something that you did or didn't do. if you wanna try and label it as an insult to try to make yourself look above me (even though we all know about your insult tirades), then go right ahead. if you wanna ignore the facts and post some more "LOL!!!1" posts, then go right ahead. if you wanna make yourself look more like a fool, go right ahead. but, boy, am i glad people like you aren't allowed to vote yet. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Saddam a threat to the United States, huh?
Just in the New York Times today, enjoy.


INSPECTOR'S JUDGMENT
U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 7, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.

Advertisement

The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed'' its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.

Mr. Duelfer said that even during those years, Saddam Hussein had aimed at "preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.'' But he said he had found no evidence of any concerted effort by Iraq to restart the programs.

The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions, based on reports by American intelligence agencies, and what a 15-month inquiry by American investigators found since the war.

Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that between 1991 and 2003, Mr. Hussein had in effect sacrificed Iraq's illicit weapons to the larger goal of winning an end to United Nations sanctions. But he also argued that Mr. Hussein had used the period to try to exploit avenues opened by the sanctions, especially the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

In addition, the report concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether it had illicit weapons, mainly as a deterrent to Iran, its rival.

The American inspector presented his conclusions to Congress on Wednesday, including highly charged public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With Iraq figuring prominently in the last dash toward the presidential election, Democrats argued that the report had undermined the administration's case for war, while the White House and its Republican allies called attention to elements in the report that highlighted potential dangers posed by Mr. Hussein's government.

"There is no doubt that Saddam was a threat to our nation, and there is no doubt that he had W.M.D. capability, and the Duelfer report is very clear on these points,'' said James Wilkinson, a White House deputy national security adviser, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction.

The three-volume report, totaling 918 pages, represented the most authoritative attempt so far to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq between 1991 and 2003, beginning with the point after the Persian Gulf war when Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear-weapons program. The conclusions suggest that the main war aim cited by the White House in March 2003 - to disarm Iraq, which American intelligence agencies said possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program - was based on an outdated view of Iraq's weapons stockpiles.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer said in the report, Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any active effort to gain those abilities. Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war,'' Mr. Duelfer said in the report. It said American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.''

Doctor Ferro

I can't count the number of both Republicans and Liberals who have said "Don't believe anything you hear!" or "The news is biased" yet once it benefits them they start pasting articles everywhere.

If you beleive what the NY Times prints then you really are beyond help.

Republicans and Liberals? Are we to assume there are no Liberal Republicans?

Republicans, Democrats, and Liberals, whether they are combo or whatever, that wasn't really my point.

This is a rather hilarious discussion.

I have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Good for me. I refuse to acknowledge Michael Moore's political opinion and put money in his pocket. Congrats. I don't give two shits if the Cannes film festival, the Oscars, and the Emmy's decide to stroke his ego and give him awards up the ass, I will not subject myself to his ideology because it's my right.

---

I like how everyone ignores 'Tony Lombardi's post about the media. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

---

Anyone who takes Michael Moore as a exemplar American is fooling themselves. A patriot? Ha.

He has every right to protest and speak his mind. It's quite obvious a bunch of idiots will follow him. These are the same idiots who want to stop the Patriot Act, but want to keep our nation safe from terrorist. The same people who blame Bush for 9/11, but have sympathy for the culprits and want to know why our military isn't "restraining" them and killing them on site instead. The same people who would rather see their taxes increase because "John Kerry cares about the middle class." I guarentee you Moore doesn't care, he's in a higher tax bracket than any of you.

Neither of our choices in November are spectacular, they are downright pathetic. But I will vote for President Bush, someone who refuses to "pass a global test" in order to protect America.

Did Saddam have WMD's? Apparently not. Oh well. Big whoop.

I'm sure the people murdered in Kuwait really are upset about him being gone for "lies" by American intelligence. I'm sure they want the rape rooms back.

I'm sure John Kerry would have taken unilateral action into Afghanistan...after he went to the UN, copped out to France, asked Germany to play nice, and got down on his knees to Russia to "let him" in.

Last time I checked, Europe has problems of it's own, and little room to talk.

---

Anyways, back to Michael Moore. Kudos for him; he can get up on a podium and talk to a bunch of zealots and say he's an American. Very different if he was in front of a hostile crowd, like at the RNC.

Which also leads me to acknowledge a past event in history, quite similar...while I have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11, there have been many people who dispute the factual basis of the film itself. This seems awfully familiar to Joe McCarthy standing in front of congress, with a roll of paper, and telling the politicians how he had the names of 200-some members of government who were known communists and seditious against the government.

Was he lying? Sure.

Is Moore making a big noise with politically biased facts, and many people are believing him?

Sure.

That's their option, they have the right to.

But I guess I can leave you with this - no one, and I mean no one, should be basing their opinions on this movie. It should be taken for the political propaganda it is. It's like reading a Sean Hannity book...of course you'll agree if you are a conservative, but he's clearly biased (and he'll admit it).

The worst part of all this is the attitude many have taken to the election. "Dump Bush" and get anyone else. Well, "anyone else" isn't much better. The most liberal senator in congress, John Kerry has a 19-year record of raising taxes (and that is factual, and on the books) and will most likely do it again. Bush has ties to the Saudis? Check out the "Big Dig" incident Kerry and Ted Kennedy were involved with back in Massachusets.

John Kerry might do some good things. I don't think he's a bad person. I don't think John Edwards is a bad person. You need to look at the candidates objectively. I don't find everything Bush does to be right (for instance, get the ground troops the fuck out of Iraq and call in air strikes). But President Bush represents what I like on other core issues, whereas Kerry does not.

The heuristics of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is nothing more than a simple film that took a liberal perspective on world events, and it was designed to strengthen the resolve of those who already supported his side of the issue.

---

No WMD's in Iraq? I always found that funny. He used chemicals against his own people, and for all matters, even the inspector who today said their were no WMD's admits Saddam was a threat to the US.

I am flabbergasted that Americans can search for reasons to degrade our President, rather that take a look at what he is trying to do. He removed a tyrannical, anti-American dictator in Iraq. Could it have been done better? Sure. I would have sent some British SAS and SOCOM Seal into Baghdad at night and done a little covert-ops and such, before I sent in the forces to clean it up after they captured Saddam.

The loss of American life is unfortunate, and I think it could be averted. That notwithstanding, now people say "well, why aren't we going after N.Korea? Why haven't we caught Bin Laden?" Interesting. How many people here think that if we would go after North Korea, instead of Iraq, the same thing would have resulted, except worse. Be glad Saddam had no WMD's to use. Kim Jung Il is a crazy motherfucker, and before we go onto Korean soil again after 50_ years, we'd better have a damn good plan to get our troops, who are already overtaxed, in and out of there. Better yet, let's have Canada, France and Germany get off their asses and do something.

If this is such a world problem, and a threat with WMD's, why haven't the other nations stood up and done something? Because the United States has been, and always will be, the international fall guy, regardless of the cause.

I'm serious.

If John Kerry believes in the World Community that much, where are they now?

Huh?

And Michael Moore. If Bush is so bad, than vote against him, I'm sure you will. But if he gets re-elected, rather than continue to ridicule his decisions (which I'm sure would give Moore a bit of agita considering his rotund physique), why not hold an audience with Mr. Bush, and tell him what you think any why?

---

Why, Mike, why? What leads you to believe this?

I guess "Let's Roll" means nothing.

---

Anyways, in conclusion, I'm just glad to see that this whole film has caused such an uproar. Those people who believe Moore, and soley Moore, without bothering to examine the issues. It clearly divides the lines right down the middle.

Who is a complete idiot, and who is not.

Cheers.

---



"Just another lovely member of the World Community."

Beautifully said, DJ. Beautifully said.

Unfortunately, it'll go unacknowledged and unattended (the facts, that is), as they usually are. They'll be either brushed aside, or combatted with some more half-truths from Fahrenheit 9/11 and/or the biased media. Mark my words.

Mind-Numbingly posted in a Stupid fashion by JJ:
"Did Saddam have WMD's? Apparently not. Oh well. Big whoop."


I'm sorry, did you say big Whoop? So your saying if a country wants invade another country for one reason, weither it be oil, to free it's citizens, exercise or whatever, and they can't find a reason to do so, they should make blatant lies about the country and say they have WMD and Links to a Terrorist group that killed over 3,000 American lives, and many other false statements to do so? You're logic here is rediculous, if we wanted to INVADE and BOMB/ATTACK all countries that mistreated its citizens, we would have complete world disorder. There are many ways to get a situation resolved, war should be the very last answer. Bush told us before he was elected during the 2000 debates he would never send one American troop into harm's way UNLESS IT WAS ABSOLUTLEY NESSESARY! Iraq has never harmed one single solitary U.S. Citizen and had no weapons and posed no immediate threat, yet we had to RUSH to war? Why, the document released yesterday stated at the time of U.S. attack, Saddam was not a threat, nor had he been since the Gulf War. Yet, instead of doing what this man said and giving the U.N. and the Weapons Inspectors more time, Bush sent over 1,000 American lives to their death, AND COUNTING.

So don't even tell me that this war is justified. Don't you dare say that we had logical reason to invade Iraq. If you are Truely this ignorant, then wonderful, you are in college just like me. Guess what happens when the soldiers in Iraq run out, WHICH THEY ARE. Guess what happens when the U.S. reserves run out, WHICH THEY ARE. Guess what happens when army recruitment is in one of the biggest lows ever, WHICH IT IS! WE GET TO FIGHT THIS WAR IN A DRAFT! I don't know about you but I will NEVER fight in such an unjust war. This war has killed:
US Military Fatalities
1,067

Iraqi Civilian Fatalities
37,000

Iraqi Military Fatalities
30,000

British Fatalities
68

Italian Fatalities
19

Polish Fatalities
13

Spanish Fatalities
11

Ukranian Fatalities
9

Bulgarian Fatalities
6

Canadian Fatalities
6

Slovak Fatalities
3

Thai Fatalities
2

Netherlands Fatalities
2

Estonian Fatalities
1

Salvadoran Fatalities
1

Danish Fatalities
1

Latvian Fatalities
1

Hungarian Fatalities
1

Contractor Fatalies (International - Partial List)
157

US Military Suicides
32 (24 in Iraq, 9 stateside)

Journalist Fatalities (International)
19


And all of these people Died because of a "Whoops" according to you? I will not fight in a war that is unjustified. Espessially when the man who Murdered over 3,000 innocent U.S. Civilians is still on the loose planning more attacks. We have a few thousand troops in Afganistan looking for THE MAN WHO ATTACKED US, while we have 133,000 Americans in Iraq now in a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICA!

Doctor Ferro

You admit to not seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and refuse to acknowledge his opinion, so why do we have to acknowledge yours when you haven't seen it? A prime example: The other day DV and I were talking about murders in countries and how few there are compared to the US and you brought up the economy. It had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Regarding Kerry raising taxes: I ask, so what? I certainly HOPE taxes are raised. With the debt and all of the money being spent in Iraq, I WANT taxes raised. -Pat

I found this news on a website & thought some might be interested in it.

"Michael Moore has vowed to continue offering free noodles and underwear to college students if they vote Democrat in the US Presidential Elections. The Republican Party was furious when they discovered Moore's stunt, urging authorities to prosecute him. Moore - who insists the idea was meant to be satire - hit back, accusing the Republicans of being petty, and now he's promising to continue his campaign. He writes on his website, "My friends, they will not catch me. Though I may be on the run. . . the slackers of America shall not be denied their noodles, they will proudly wear their clean underwear as free Americans. Stay strong, stay slacker, and please remember to turn the underwear inside out every three days. As for the noodles, add boiling water, stir."

Source: IMDB

I find the line

"Did Saddam have WMD's? Apparently not. Oh well. Big whoop." appalling.

It minimizes the deaths of over 1,000 of our soldiers as well as the many thousands more that are horribly crippled.

These young people were sent over there to fight a war based on incorrect information. If we are going to commit troops and risk their lives we have to be sure of the reason. As I have said before, this is not a video game where a soldier get shot and you just replay it until you win. These soldiers are gone and are not coming back. The whole lousy country of Iraq isn't worth one of our soldiers, let alone thousands.

There is a lot of bashing Michael Moore - he's fat - he's a liar - he hates Bush. I'm no Michael Moore fan - I have never seen any of his movies - but I applaud him for bringing and keeping this issue on everyone's mind.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
If you had taken the time to READ THE DAMN ARTICLE, you would have noticed that he did not give the noodles and underwear out for voting Democrat, HE GAVE THEM OUT IF YOU PLEDGED TO VOTE! I should know, I was THERE! He even stressed this fact when giving out the noodles and underwear that by giving a person these noodles they did not have to vote for Kerry, just Vote. All he asked when giving out the underwear and noodles WAS TO VOTE! The Michigan Rebublican party is so stuck up and afraid of a large voter turnout in Michigan because of two things, Large Number of Youths(Who statistically vote Democrat), and a large number of African Americans, who also vote Democrat. The republican party is just so afraid of these things they wanted to take police and government officials away from real problems plagueing lower Michigan, like drugs and homicide, to arrest a man for giving people noodles and clean underwear in exchange for a pledge to do their civic duty. Please, give me a break Republicans. Are you that despirate?

Needless to say, those government officials in charge of the counties Moore visited, including mine of East Lansing, said, "They would rather spend more time arresting people giving out cocaine over underwear."

Unbelieveable.

Doctor Ferro

I agree with you 110% Marco, people on this board making these heartless(and thoughtless) comments should go to war and fight the "baddies" then.

COME ON, JJ! If you feel that being lied to by the One Man we are SUPPOSED to trust in making our desicions and protecting us is ok, THEN GO FIGHT! Cause by your CARELESSNESS, you are sending over 100,000 people in harms way for no reason. Why don't you go and fight this war then? If it's so justified.

Read my above post that is 4 posts up in reaction to your stupid comment if you already haven't.

Have fun, send me a postcard.

Doctor Ferro