Comic Genesis Forums

MikeVanPelt wrote:

The JAM wrote:That's why there MIGHT be TWO editing rooms...

heh heh heh ...

And a midnight commando raid to switch the reels...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

[CentauriFan]
By the way, that is a GORGEOUS fan of hair you've got there.
[/CentauriFan]

Moore also has a habit of playing the Big Lie when he can get away with it, too --- a key example from "Columbine" being when he claims that Iraq became a regional threat because the United States armed Saddam.

It is true that some people claim the US "armed" Iraq with chemical weapons, but this is not the case. In fact, we sold Iraq dual-purpose technology that COULD be used to produce chemical weapons. It could also have been used to boost Iraq's economy with various commercial uses. At the same time, similar technology was being sold by most of Europe including Russia to Iraq. The US never actually sold WMDs of any kind to Iraq, but that's what's often implied by critics of US policy.

On the conventional front, Iraq's 1991 military at its height contained less than 1% US military equipment. Instead, 50% of all Iraqi combat vehicles such as tanks, APCs, helicopters and jets were provided by the Soviet Union. 30% was provided by France. 10% by China. Even if the entire remaining 10% had been supplied by the US, this would not have been enough on its own to tip Iraq from "peaceful neighbor" to "regional threat". And in fact, most of that 10% was randomly-acquired equipment which included Czechoslovakian and Argentinian APCs.

The fact is that Iraq's American-built weaponry consisted, in its entirety, of a Vietnam-era collection of some thirty surplus M60A1 tanks. When Iraq gassed its own population, the US cut spare part supply for these tanks, as well as other forms of support for Iraq, so by 1991 NONE of these vehicles were in any condition to leave their motor pool under their own power.

Cute Note on Iraqi WMDs: critics of the US like to claim that the CIA provided satellite data that allowed Iraq to employ chemical weapons more accurately during the Iran/Iraq War.

The problem with this argument is that all the occasions of chemical use during that conflict were well-documented, and they amounted to three in total. The first time, the Iraqis hit a hilltop with mustard gas and then charged up the hill. Apparently their "CIA handlers" hadn't informed them that mustard gas rolls downhill...they ran smack into their own gas attack, without any masks. Hundreds of Iraqi troops were incapacitated by this "CIA-assisted" attack.

Both the following occasions involved the Iraqis pasting huge areas where they suspected Iranian units were lurking. The CIA is accused of helping the Iraqis to make "pinpoint accurate" attacks, but in reality no such attacks were made in the two mass bombardments. What use finesse when you're using a sledgehammer?

Ohhh this should be good, porky is going to get his.

Biowarfare! Against a hypochondriac, no less. That's just purely eeeeevil.

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Biowarfare! Against a hypochondriac, no less. That's just purely eeeeevil.

Well, it's nothing to sneeze at.

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Biowarfare! Against a hypochondriac, no less. That's just purely eeeeevil.

Well, it's nothing to sneeze at.

no it snot

I just hope nothing goes wrong here.

The JAM wrote:I just hope nothing goes wrong here.

Well, the only real quantity that is unaccouted for is the lawyer, but since the contract does have the major clause written into it, I'm pretty sure they can brute force their way around it.

IronFox wrote:

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Biowarfare! Against a hypochondriac, no less. That's just purely eeeeevil.

Well, it's nothing to sneeze at.

no it snot

Ah, this is all about the director's unwarranted fear of the Boogerman anyways.