• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

O'Reilly & Moore

What the hell are you guys talking about?

The question is "Would you sacrifice your kid for Falujiah?"

(and comparison to rik's variation, "Would you sacrifice your kid for a bridge in Germany?")

What this has to do with cherry-picking orders is beyond me. It has to do with whether it is worth sending American soldiers to war for this issue.

For example:
"Defeating an invading force" is obviously something that I would be willing to have my loved ones in the military die for. I would sacrifice a kid to protect America from an invasion. OTOH, "Changing the carpet styles in the Kremlin" is not something I would want or be willing to have my loved ones die for.

Therefore, I would support a commander-in-chief who sent troops, including my kin, to stop the first scenerio. I would not support a commander-in-chief who did the second.

In the same way, "Would I sacrifice my kid to protect a bridge in Germany?" Yes. I support sending forces to carry out such acts.

"Would I sacrifice my kid for Falujiah?" No, it's not worth the cost.

It has nothing to do with following orders. It has to do with which order the commander-in-chief is giving. Does the benefit to be gained justify the cost? When it's other people's kids, it's easy to say yes. But when it is your own? If you can say yes then, you know it is a cause worth fighting for.
 
Moore was on O'Reilly last night? Really? If so, I'm surprised.

A saw a clip of Moore on the David Letterman Show and he said he'd debate anyone about his movie. And then I see the nightly news/talk-type shows all saying they want Moore to come on but he refuses. Somebody somewhere is lying.
 
Number Six said:
Moore was on O'Reilly last night? Really? If so, I'm surprised.

A saw a clip of Moore on the David Letterman Show and he said he'd debate anyone about his movie. And then I see the nightly news/talk-type shows all saying they want Moore to come on but he refuses. Somebody somewhere is lying.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly is at he convention and cornered Moore on camera to get him to do the segment.

I was watching and thinking, this is what people want to watch?

You have Moore who has the scorched earth view of the war intel, Bush lied no ifs ands or buts. Then he resorted to emotional garbage like "would you sacrfrice your child?" blah blah blah. This is people's hero?

On the other side you have O'Reilly who was as much of a bore as ever. They discussed exactly three things, poorly. He failed as a host for the segment by not cutting off the "yes he did/no he didnt" level of discourse. O'Reilly even agreed with the myth that the only reason for going to war was the imminent threat of wmd.

These two guys deserve each other.
 
Orielly did the emotional side step too.

When Moore asked about Iraq being a threat, Bill went into Saddams links with Hammas. While that is true, Hamas is not ALQueda. THey are Israels problem. AL Q is our problem.
 
corplinx said:
They discussed exactly three things, poorly. He failed as a host for the segment by not cutting off the "yes he did/no he didnt" level of discourse.
Click to expand...

I didn't see this, but I am willing to guess that your, and generally most of us on this board's interpretation of the debate would employ much more critical thinking than the average viewer of the debate. The average viewer would be more likely to simply side with the person they already most closely agree with.

That's why ad hominems, strawmen, and the like work so well...most people aren't smart enough to see through them.

(edited hastily to correct a horrible oversight that made it seem to say exactly the opposite of what I was saying!!)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

Grammatron said:
Have you seen the movie?
Click to expand...
No. I just saw some clips. I like entertaining movies.
 
pgwenthold said:
What the hell are you guys talking about?

The question is "Would you sacrifice your kid for Falujiah?"

(and comparison to rik's variation, "Would you sacrifice your kid for a bridge in Germany?")

What this has to do with cherry-picking orders is beyond me. It has to do with whether it is worth sending American soldiers to war for this issue.

For example:
"Defeating an invading force" is obviously something that I would be willing to have my loved ones in the military die for. I would sacrifice a kid to protect America from an invasion. OTOH, "Changing the carpet styles in the Kremlin" is not something I would want or be willing to have my loved ones die for.

Therefore, I would support a commander-in-chief who sent troops, including my kin, to stop the first scenerio. I would not support a commander-in-chief who did the second.

In the same way, "Would I sacrifice my kid to protect a bridge in Germany?" Yes. I support sending forces to carry out such acts.

"Would I sacrifice my kid for Falujiah?" No, it's not worth the cost.

It has nothing to do with following orders. It has to do with which order the commander-in-chief is giving. Does the benefit to be gained justify the cost? When it's other people's kids, it's easy to say yes. But when it is your own? If you can say yes then, you know it is a cause worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

Not by my lights. MM crafted a question that could simply not be answered honestly without making the answerer look either stupid or mean. It was naked rhetoric. I merely stated that this empty rhetoric could be used to come out against any war...just or unjust. Your implication is that a soldier or his family can actually have such a choice....and that's simply not true.

Like I said once you sign up you belong to Uncle Sugar.
U.ncle
S.am

Ain't
Released
Me
Yet

...is what that tag over your left pocket means. A soldier can't cherry pick, nor can a soldier's family.

you say :
What this has to do with cherry-picking orders is beyond me. It has to do with whether it is worth sending American soldiers to war for this issue.
Click to expand...

MM's rhetorical question amounts to such cherry picking. Otherwise why pick Fallujah? Why not say "digging Saddam out of his hole?...or crushing the nest of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?" Our soldiers did all that too ya know...some of whom are friends of mine. Luckily for me, none of my friends have yet been "sacrificed"... :rolleyes:

Whether or not to send troops is a valid question, but it's not always crystal clear from the outset is it? There was a huge "America First" isolationist movement during WWII. They obviously didn't have all the right answers either did they? Advocating the idea that recruits and their families should be able to choose what enemy to fight...or not....is disingenuous to say the least. There'd be no effective Army if that was ever to happen.

-z
 
Tmy said:
Orielly did the emotional side step too.

When Moore asked about Iraq being a threat, Bill went into Saddams links with Hammas. While that is true, Hamas is not ALQueda. THey are Israels problem. AL Q is our problem.
Click to expand...

You know Tmy. You have gone to a new low. O'Reilly is definitely smarter than you. I guess that means you'll have to host a daytime talk show while the slightly less idiotic class gets to host primetime.
 
pgwenthold said:
What the hell are you guys talking about?

The question is "Would you sacrifice your kid for Falujiah?"

(and comparison to rik's variation, "Would you sacrifice your kid for a bridge in Germany?")
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. No one would want to sacrafice their children for any reason--even if it were to stem the "evil" of the world.

It is a ridiculous position. That is the criticism of Moore's approach.





It has nothing to do with following orders. It has to do with which order the commander-in-chief is giving. Does the benefit to be gained justify the cost? When it's other people's kids, it's easy to say yes. But when it is your own? If you can say yes then, you know it is a cause worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

When a person signs up for military service, their parents are not sacraficing them. These "children" are adults making choices about their own lives. They are not the first soldier to face death and certainly won't be the last.
 
rikzilla said:
MM's rhetorical question amounts to such cherry picking. Otherwise why pick Fallujah? Why not say "digging Saddam out of his hole?
Click to expand...


No




...or crushing the nest of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?"
Click to expand...


Yes


Again, I don't know why you think these are at all comparable?

The war in Iraq is not the same as fighting al queda in Afghanastan. It is not the same as WWII. Therefore, it makes no sense to equate questions about worthiness of actions in Iraq vs those in WWII or Afghan.
 
corplinx said:
You know Tmy. You have gone to a new low. O'Reilly is definitely smarter than you. I guess that means you'll have to host a daytime talk show while the slightly less idiotic class gets to host primetime.
Click to expand...

Well I do have 2 emmys for my work on "The Chevy Chase Show".:p
 
c0rbin said:
When a person signs up for military service, their parents are not sacraficing them. These "children" are adults making choices about their own lives. They are not the first soldier to face death and certainly won't be the last.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with a soldier facing death, if there is a good reason for it.

Do you think that whatever we are fighting for in Iraq is a good enough reason to have soldiers die?

Just because they agree to risk their lives, doesn't mean we have to find a place to put their lives in danger.

And these adults are still their parents' children. The parents are still mom and dad. Turning 18 doesn't change that.
 
pgwenthold said:


No





Yes


Again, I don't know why you think these are at all comparable?

The war in Iraq is not the same as fighting al queda in Afghanastan. It is not the same as WWII. Therefore, it makes no sense to equate questions about worthiness of actions in Iraq vs those in WWII or Afghan.
Click to expand...

Of course they aren't. They are specific instances. You don't get to pick. You join the Army after 9/11...maybe you go fight AQ in Afghani-land. Maybe you're happy....then they send you to Iraq,.. maybe now you're not happy. So tell me again what the point is?? Must troops always now be happy? Does your planet have a giant X scratched across it's surface?

If so it would explain much.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Of course they aren't. They are specific instances. You don't get to pick.
Click to expand...

But the commander-in-chief does!

Don't you see? This is the whole point! The question assumes you have the power to control where your military kid is going. Would you send them to Falujiah knowing they are at the risk of being killed? (Moore's question even implies that you know they would die, which is a lot harsher criteria)

If you say that you would not be willing to let your kid go (assuming you could make that decision), then how can you support Bush's decision to send other kids in?

That is what the question is asking. I think you are making it far more complicated than it is. Of course we can't actually decide whether someone goes. But _if you had a say_, would you? That's the question.
 
pgwenthold said:
But the commander-in-chief does!

Don't you see? This is the whole point! The question assumes you have the power to control where your military kid is going. Would you send them to Falujiah knowing they are at the risk of being killed? (Moore's question even implies that you know they would die, which is a lot harsher criteria)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't let my kid go to the store if I knew it was going to get him killed...
 
pgwenthold said:
I have no problems with a soldier facing death, if there is a good reason for it.

Do you think that whatever we are fighting for in Iraq is a good enough reason to have soldiers die?
Click to expand...

As a civilian, I have the luxury of philosophizing thusly. If I were a soldier and "in the sh|t", I might wonder, I might complain, but I sure as hell will also be going up and over when sarge says "go!"



Just because they agree to risk their lives, doesn't mean we have to find a place to put their lives in danger.
Click to expand...

This argument is old and tired.

You might as well stay in bed tomorrow because every time you get in a car, you are risking your life and others.

And for what, pgwenthold? For WHAT!?


And these adults are still their parents' children. The parents are still mom and dad. Turning 18 doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

No sh|t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom