Thanks For The Memories
 

A friend sent this to me and I thought it was pretty cool. Has anyone seen this?

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Wow... takes something like that to put everything into perspective. I liked it, thanks Pinkie :)

Doesn't this belong in "Politics"?

I don't go in politics. :D

Plus, I was just asking if people had seen it. If it were about Michael Jackson should it automatically go in "Entertainment?" I don't think so...

I'll let the mods decide. :thumbsup:

I can understand the confusion, though Clavus. It actually belongs in Tilted Fractured Fairy Tales.

Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, warrreagl...

Good stuff, Pinkie.

Umm... and?

I guess I don't get it. Whats the goal of this thing? After every frame I said to myself "okay, so whats the point?" All throughout history countries have used somebody (or another country) to get what they want/need. Then when that changes, they'll turn right around and screw em.

So, are we supposed to be sympathetic towards Iraq/Saddam? Or are we supposed to be sympathetic towards the US. A "Gee, it's our own fault that things are they way they are today" type thing.

I don't get what the message is supposed to be at all.

ditto...what she said

I think thats basically up to the person viewing it. They arent telling you what to think, they're just presenting some facts. I personally liked it because i think Ronald Reagan was the biggest scumbag ever to walk the planet(like worse than Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Dave Barry combined), and i like anything that puts him in a negative light... thats just me though.

My thoughts exactly.

Also... why is it that an entire decade was skipped over. *shrugs*

Dave Barry is a scumbag ? ? ? ?

He's actually a pretty nice guy when you get to know him.

Although, if you had asked me which person referred to ketchup as a vegetable, I might mistakenly choose Dave Barry over Ronald Reagon.

I suppose it's up to the audience to decide. Kind of like the movie 911. It's an artistic and entertaining perspective. (W/ awesome music I might add)

I think the "goal" of the little film was to show a relationship between the US and Saddam that has always been there.

So are you saying we invaded Iraq because we needed something from Saddam? :hmm:

T'was a joke, I've never met the guy, and i'm sure he's alright in real life. At worst, I just dont find him very funny.

moved to Politics.

The vid doesn't show anything most people don't know already, or atleast I hope. I don't think we are supposed to be sympathetic towards either America or Iraq, but towards all the innocent lives that were wasted in a couple senseless wars brought upon them by a couple of sick governments. The problem with Americans is that they don't like to view anything negative in regards to their own country; they like to ignore facts and put the blame elsewhere. Either way, good vid, simple but effective for those that aren't aware of the situation.

P.S. Saddam was a good looking guy as a youngster, eh? :lol:

Well put, Rdr4evr. I agree!! And yes, he sure was. :o

The message is as plain as the nose on your face. Republican bashing - especially Bush bashing. Same old cliched bullshit...."war for oil"...yada yada.

What a blatant attempt at yet more liberal gnashing of teeth. *yawn*

A comparable film would show how cozy the U.S. had gotten with Stalin between 1940 and 1945, and how many weapons and munitions we sent to the Soviet Union. And he turned them on his own people.

War makes strange bedfellows.

Intresting. In accurate and distorted, but intresting none the less.


To understand the relationship betweem Iraq and Iran, you have to understand the relationships between the USA and other Briish colonies. Also, you need a clearer understanding of the Iraq/Iran/USA relationship before Carter fucked over the Shah and after he fucked him over. Understand that and you'll have a clearer view of things.

Also, the US "supllied WMDs" is not accurate. The US gave only Iranian troop intel and supply line detail. Bottom line is, the blame America first crowd is gonna eat this video up just like they ate up the Farenhiet 9/11 film. However, if you want a true understand of the whole story, you need to dig deeper.

a brilliant example how selected facts and artful wording can skew history. watch your news and read your papers accordingly.

Doesn't look like it's blaming America, rather it's blaming certain American policies, notably those carried out during the Reagan era. There's certainly a lot to criticize there.

Of course, anybody who criticizes the right gets accused of being unpatriotic, in the amount of time it takes to sneeze.

It's an interesting quirk of American psychology right now. :)

Can we have one vaugely political thread on this website that doesnt turn in to some moronic flame war? Did Pinkie ever suggest that these were the complete facts on the scenario? No, she said someone e-mailed it to her and she wondered if anyone else had seen it. I promote a ban on the use of the word Bush on this website, it's getting boring.

But surely no criticizing to be done of Clinton who could have had Saddam. Hmmm...

That's no shit.

Even if it's not capitalized??

:D

That could potentially be devistating to the EZ boards. And i know better than to mess with anyone with a fetish.

Just a slight correction.

The US did sell Iraq cultures of dangerous pathogens in the 80's.

I don't think this was unreasonable at the time (many nations use such cultures in research), but it should be noted.

Of course, the flash vid wants you to believe that we shipped tons of weapons grade bioweapons, but then again, I don't think it is trying to provide a fair analysis so much as shrill propaganda.

Well, I agree that there are altogether too many people who are quick to call people un-American the second they question government policies and i also acknowledge that a 4 minute video set to a Bing Crosby song will probably not present all relavant facts, however I found the video somewhat thought provoking. And, Pinkie, no I hadn't seen it before.
I did think that the video did show some of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality that often people forget or are not aware of. That being said, I feel that it is a good reminder for people that the USA does not always interact with other countries for purely high-minded principled reasons, and we frequently are interested in "what's in it for us." Sometines this is a good thing, sometimes not.

No one interacts for purely high-minded principled reasons. Everyone is only interested in what is in it for them. No country would ever say, "go ahead and conquer us and take our resources because after all, its good for everyone else" Every country, if not every person, acts in their own best interest.


ps. i din't bother watching the short. just reading the post gave me an idea of what was in it.

Yes, we couldn't just stop with Kuwait's oil. :rolleyes:

Averett, we are supposed to be curious enough to endeavor to seek information that will bring us closer to an accurate view of what is and has happened in the world, especially in matters of whether or not to take up arms against another nation on the orders of our commander in chief.

Disregarding the 1st post and in thread, and the 3rd and 15th posts,
which deal only with moving the thread to the politics forum, I am posting
the first links; to two reputable news sources that discuss the details in
the "video" and attempt to provide a clearer picture of how the U.S. arrived
at the policies that the Bush administration was presenting to the public
about Iraq in Sept, 2002. The other 27 posts to this thread contain no
links to justify or to add credibility to the opinions of the posters..........

<a href="http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/howsaddam.html">HOW SADDAM HAPPENED
America helped make a monster. What to do with him—and what happens after he’s gone—has haunted us for a quarter century
By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
September 23 , 2002</a>

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html">World > Asia: South & Central
from the September 06, 2002 edition
In war, some facts less factual
Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor</a>

I think that it would not be inaccurate or unreasonable (all though it will be unpopular) to say that the reaction to the "video" linked in the first post,
helps to explain how Ronald Reagan could perform as poorly and as criminally as he did as president, and still receive the outpouring of sympathetic emotion and reverential accolades that he did during the week of his death
last year. It also helps to explain how another war criminal, George W. Bush,
could be elected president, despite the record of his first term. It also
certainly helps to explain these comments from Bill Moyers:
I predict that someone will resapond with a post about Moyers inserting a
quote attributed to James Watt, that Watt denies ever saying while "in congress". If your reaction is to attempt to delegitmize all of Moyer's comments by pointing that out, that is your perogative.

I'll end by inviting everybody to tell me how they "know what they know".
I must be doing something wrong. I use the web to research endlessly, and
when I'm reasonably sure that I know what I'm talking about, I post about
that issue, with links to sources that shaped my opinion. Even then, I'm still
never entirely sure that my opinion is entirely accurate. It's very important
to me that I am being as accurate as I can be, after all, it becomes what
I think, and you are what you think.

Where do you get your information, and how are you so sure about it that
you almost never post a link to the information's source ? What am I doing
wrong ?

Intresting.

What exactly did the Union have to gain when they fought the South during the War of Northern Aggression? Cotton and other agri products? That would not have stopped. The South was making too much money from Northern textile mills. Sure, England enjoyed the cheap cotton, but the turn around time and the quantity in trading with England wasn't near what it was with New England mills

Enough of the lecture and back on point. What did the North have to gain during then WONA?

Thanks for the vid Pinkie.

I don't think anyone here would suggest that the US has ever been in danger of invasion as you seem to be suggesting... US aggression is almost always tied to its business/trade interests.

The US is not alone in this.

That said, I would say there are a few countries that do act for "high-minded principled reasons". Canada and many of the Scandinavian countries involove themselves as third party negotiators... The reason they are ideal for this role is that they don't have the aquisitive/aggrssive (colonial?) attitudes of most of the other industiralized nations.