O'Reilly & Moore

[Tmy]

WW2 is NOT Iraq. If we didnt fight the Nazis we'd be speaking German right now. If we didnt fight Saddam, would we be speaking Arabic??? NO!

We werent in Berlin for the Germans sake, we were there to protect America.

Are we in Iraq to protect America from immnient harm. Thats very debateable.

No one had a problem with going into Afganistian cause we knew the threat was there. Iraq was a different story.

 

[Sane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

Moore's questions is really of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety.

Another possible answer: "Nobody, Mr. Moore, wants to see his son killed in combat, and nobody would happily offer his son up as a sacrifice. Are you saying that it therefore follows that no cause is worth fighting for, that no war is just, that white men shouldn't have died in the Civil War to free black men, that Americans shouldn't have died in WW II to stop Hitler's mass exterminations?"

I wonder if anyone gave that kind of answer to Moore when he was shooting his movie, and if so, why those answers ended up on the cutting room floor.

The problem is that Moore attempts to distinguish the Iraqi war (from other wars) as an unjust and fruitless endeavor based on his belief that there really were no WMD.

His views are shortsided and commercial. I believe he'd have written the same story (with a different cast of characters) if he were a filmmaker during the Vietnam war, Korean Conflict, WWII, etc, etc.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

The problem is that Moore attempts to distinguish the Iraqi war (from other wars) as an unjust and fruitless endeavor based on his belief that there really were no WMD.

His views are shortsided and commercial. I believe he'd have written the same story (with a different cast of characters) if he were a filmmaker during the Vietnam war, Korean Conflict, WWII, etc, etc.

Was he against going into Afganistan???

 

[pgwenthold]

I think that is a case of hind-sight being 20/20.

Is the alley in Berlin worth it for an American soldier with the knowledge that "coalition forces" (read: the Russians) were going to--without doubt--over run the final German stronghold?

These are not the descisions that arm-chair generals and grunts make.

These people signed up for a job that they knew might take them to some alley in some corner of the world where peopleare trying to kill them.

I expect our military to protect America (and the world, to an extent) from threats to its citizens.

I do not expect them to risk their lives against piddly third world countries who do not pose a security risk, on the basis of weak intelligence.

Yes, they must go where their commanders tell them to go. But the commanders go where the cammander-ini-chief tells them to go. No one would have to die to defend Falujiah if the commander-in-chief didn't send them there. But these are people, for pete's sake, who have families and friends. Sure, they signed up knowing there would be risks, but there are still such things as unnecessary risks.

Your "arm-chair general" remark is a complete non-sequitor (if anything, it is an "arm-chair commander in chief"). The question is, is the cost in human life worth the gain that will be had?

In WWII, the answer was yes. Clearly yes. In Iraq?

 

[Snide]

I described a scene in detail from the movie which I saw, where Moore confronts Democratic Rep. Tanner, an outspoken critic of the war, a Navy veteran himself, and a man with adult children...Moore is trying to get Tanner to 'sign up' his children on a piece of paper to prove that he (Tanner) isn't a hypocritical checken hawk...and your response is that Moore's '100% true', '$10,000 dollars for a single error', 'non-fiction documentary' was just a comedy that I was too dumb to get or hadn't seen?

Moore has claimed his facts presented are true. His interpretation, wise-a$$ comments, attempts at humor, etc., based on those facts, are easily decipherable, and not what he's referring to.

I honestly didn't think it was that difficult to figure out.

Edited to add (for civility): Your comments are fair, esp. since you saw the movie. I don't mean to imply that you are "too dumb" to get the humor. Perhaps you just didn't find it funny; I didn't laugh at that part, either, especially since I knew that Rep. Kennedy actually was very cooperative with Mr. Moore, which we don't get to see (just a funny look is all we get).

 

[crimresearch]

" Was he against going into Afganistan???"

Well, didn't he claim that Saddam Hussein was the rightful ruler of Kuwait and was wronfgully deposed by the coalition back then?

And 'All war is wrong' is far too simplistic a postion.

In WWII up to 50% of the eligble Quakers (who do seem to be in agreement that they utterly reject all war), served in an apparent attempt to defeat the greater evil.

I guess that's the difference between acting in the real world, and debating in the abstract.

 

[rikzilla]

WW2 is NOT Iraq. If we didnt fight the Nazis we'd be speaking German right now. If we didnt fight Saddam, would we be speaking Arabic??? NO!

We werent in Berlin for the Germans sake, we were there to protect America.

Are we in Iraq to protect America from immnient harm. Thats very debateable.

No one had a problem with going into Afganistian cause we knew the threat was there. Iraq was a different story.

You forget....there was much debate and liberal hand-wringing over Afghanistan after 9/11 and prior to invasion. The useful idiots were out in the streets long before Iraq was on the table.

-z

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

I believe he'd have written the same story (with a different cast of characters) if he were a filmmaker during the Vietnam war, Korean Conflict, WWII, etc, etc.

That was my point. Nobody wants to see their children killed, no matter how just the cause. It was a question whose only purpose was to embarrass the person being asked.

 

[crimresearch]

"Moore has claimed his facts presented are true. His interpretation, wise-a$$ comments, attempts at humor, etc., based on those facts, are easily decipherable, and not what he's referring to.
I honestly didn't think it was that difficult to figure out"

Fine, then you will have no difficulty in weeding out the humor from the 'facts' and telling me what was that puported 'signing up'? The 'Parental Involuntary Enlistment of a Child into Military Service' exposed?
Or was he just waving around a page from the Manhattan phone book and asking people to sign it?

And if there was in fact no truth to the idea that American parents can sign their children up for war involuntarily, and that only the right wing chicken hawks were too hypocritical to do so,
(which whether you admit it or not WAS Moore's point) then we are back to the opening question:

If someone is trying to reveal the truth about something like this war, whose side are they *really* serving by obscuring the issues with fabricated or distracting theatrics?


Was Moore afraid that no one would believe the war was really bad if he stuck to an unvarnished presentation?

 

[Tmy]

You forget....there was much debate and liberal hand-wringing over Afghanistan after 9/11 and prior to invasion. The useful idiots were out in the streets long before Iraq was on the table.

-z

You forget there was little to no talk about Iraq being a threat after 911. It was all about Bin Ladin and Afgan.

 

[rikzilla]

I expect our military to protect America (and the world, to an extent) from threats to its citizens.

I do not expect them to risk their lives against piddly third world countries who do not pose a security risk, on the basis of weak intelligence.

Yes, they must go where their commanders tell them to go. But the commanders go where the cammander-ini-chief tells them to go. No one would have to die to defend Falujiah if the commander-in-chief didn't send them there. But these are people, for pete's sake, who have families and friends. Sure, they signed up knowing there would be risks, but there are still such things as unnecessary risks.

Your "arm-chair general" remark is a complete non-sequitor (if anything, it is an "arm-chair commander in chief"). The question is, is the cost in human life worth the gain that will be had?

In WWII, the answer was yes. Clearly yes. In Iraq?

That "Arm-chair-commander-in-chief" of yours is the reason that Iraqi family and friends are digging up their missing loved ones from unmarked graves instead of Saddam adding more bodies to them... Is the cost in human life worth the gain? Good question. Ask one of those Iraqis wandering through the mass grave site.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

That was my point. Nobody wants to see their children killed, no matter how just the cause. It was a question whose only purpose was to embarrass the person being asked.

Exactly...

 

[Snide]

"Moore has claimed his facts presented are true. His interpretation, wise-a$$ comments, attempts at humor, etc., based on those facts, are easily decipherable, and not what he's referring to.
I honestly didn't think it was that difficult to figure out"

Fine, then you will have no difficulty in weeding out the humor from the 'facts' and telling me what the standard form number was for that 'Parental Involuntary Enlistment of a Child into Military Service" piece of paper?
Or was he just waving around a page from the Manhattan phone book and asking people to sign it??

It's called a prop. Rush ruffles them often on the air. So, yes, another attempt at humor.

 

[Tmy]

HA! I just heard the interview on the radio.

Moore and BIll are the same person! They use the same type of strawmen.

Now if Bush can get off wh "bad information" why cant Moore? The info he has says bush is a liar.

 

[c0rbin]

Your "arm-chair general" remark is a complete non-sequitor (if anything, it is an "arm-chair commander in chief"). The question is, is the cost in human life worth the gain that will be had?

In WWII, the answer was yes. Clearly yes. In Iraq?

Like it or not, the Commander-in-Chief thought so and committed our military--who signed up to do just this kind of job.

 

[Sane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

Was he against going into Afganistan???

I don't think the revenue forcast for making a film about our troops fighting that war would have been as lucrative.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

I don't think the revenue forcast for making a film about our troops fighting that war would have been as lucrative.

So Mike Moore is in this for money? Yeah sure.

I guess Bush is in it for his oil chums.

 

[pgwenthold]

Like it or not, the Commander-in-Chief thought so and committed our military--who signed up to do just this kind of job.

What kind of a job? A useless mission that will gain nothing in terms of national or international safety? That's not why anyone I know went to the military.

No, they wanted to defend the US and protect Americans (including me) and the world from threats. Germany in WWII qualifies. Did Iraq?

Electricians agree to a job working with electricity. That doesn't mean that we should ask them to rewire the plugged in toaster while standing barefoot in a tub of water.

 

[rikzilla]

What kind of a job? A useless mission that will gain nothing in terms of national or international safety? That's not why anyone I know went to the military.

No, they wanted to defend the US and protect Americans (including me) and the world from threats. Germany in WWII qualifies. Did Iraq?

Electricians agree to a job working with electricity. That doesn't mean that we should ask them to rewire the plugged in toaster while standing barefoot in a tub of water.

You need to calm down and make sense. Debating is supposed to be fun and educational. You're just ranting now....

Are you trying to assert that any soldier should be able to cherry-pick his orders? I was a soldier, and I can tell you right now there is no democracy in the Army. You have no constitutional rights, your legal status being always determined under the UCMJ. (I always found it ironic that in order to protect/defend the constitution we had to be divested of it's protections...but hey, that's the way it works.)

You need to understand, it matters not why anyone joins the Army. I joined for an education. I know guys who joined because the local cops were looking for them at home. Some guys joined for the travel, others 'cause they saw a meal ticket. Some actually joined out of a patriotic sense of duty...but they were either a small minority, or were embarrassed to say so. I never met one, but I was only in for 4 years...I'm sure there must have been some...somewhere.

All these reasons....and many more....the Army doesn't care. You are a warm body and they own you for your term of enlistment. You don't get to fight the personally approved enemy, or the just war. You get to follow orders or go to jail. Period. Any Army that played it any different would not long exist.

-z

 

[c0rbin]

Is yours a cozy airmchair?

Pehaps Iraq is the War on Terrorism's own Operation Market Garden, an over-reaching mission flawed from the start.

History will tsk-tsk better than we ever could.