[Powerbook]

Did you see Michael Moore at Jay Leno? He was pretty good (imho) with the spontaneous singing etc. And I like his term of "hatriots" (like patriots but with hate as their basis).

PB.

[Zimphire]

Yes Moore's films are pretty hatriotic.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes Moore's films are pretty hatriotic.

Sure, and the families of 933++ killed Americans are surely pretty hatriotic, too! No?

PB.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Sure, and the families of 933++ killed Americans are surely pretty hatriotic, too! No?

PB.

No.. why would you say that?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Sure, and the families of 933++ killed Americans are surely pretty hatriotic, too! No?

PB.

Moore tries to use this arguement and I'm surprised nobody has railed him yet for it.

Two words. Volunteer Army. It was their decision to make. You don't join the military to plant gardens. You are trained to kill.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Moore tries to use this arguement and I'm surprised nobody has railed him yet for it.

Two words. Volunteer Army. It was their decision to make. You don't join the military to plant gardens. You are trained to kill.

Yes. I know. But the point of e.g. Michael Moore is to show that's damn useless to be killed for no reason at all. Or maybe for a personal vendetta against one out of 99 regimes.

PB.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Yes. I know. But the point of e.g. Michael Moore is to show that's damn useless to be killed for no reason at all. Or maybe for a personal vendetta against one out of 99 regimes.

That's the question, then: is there, in fact, "no reason at all"? Moore sees no reason, but plenty of people do.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Moore tries to use this arguement and I'm surprised nobody has railed him yet for it.

Two words. Volunteer Army. It was their decision to make. You don't join the military to plant gardens. You are trained to kill.

Right. No parents sign their kids up for the service. They make their own choice.

Moore is pathetic for using these people and their families as a political tool to further his propaganda.

[pman68]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's the question, then: is there, in fact, "no reason at all"? Moore sees no reason, but plenty of people do.

Bush gave this reason: "Mushroom cloud."

There are so many other rogue states that are a bigger threat than Iraq was. Let's see, N. Korea, China, etc...

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Yes. I know. But the point of e.g. Michael Moore is to show that's damn useless to be killed for no reason at all. Or maybe for a personal vendetta against one out of 99 regimes.

PB.

Personally, I think the people fighting the war are more qualified to determine whether there's enough reason to die in it than I am from my cubicle, or Michael Moore is from anywhere.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's the question, then: is there, in fact, "no reason at all"? Moore sees no reason, but plenty of people do.

Oh, I am sure they do. http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=223804

PB.

[phoenixboy70]

heh. i like that term - "hatriot".

it so appropriately describes the american neonazicons.

props to the big "M".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
heh. i like that term - "hatriot".

it so appropriately describes the american neonazicons.

props to the big "M".

I would say the crap that spews out of MM's neonaziliberal flapping mouth is far worse than I have ever heard from any neonazicons.

[dialo]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Two words. Volunteer Army. It was their decision to make. You don't join the military to plant gardens. You are trained to kill.

Ah, yes. The "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument. Pure anti-americanism. I'm sure our brave soldiers love that they are defending your right to say it's OK for them to die.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Personally, I think the people fighting the war are more qualified to determine whether there's enough reason to die in it than I am from my cubicle, or Michael Moore is from anywhere.

I wouldn't quite say "from anywhere"; if Moore enlisted and was shipped over to Iraq then he'd be as qualified to make such judgments as anyone else in that position. As it is, he has not done that.

I don't claim to be qualified. Frankly, I'm not sure that Bush is qualified either, for the simple reason that he's not there, embroiled in the thick of it all. We can all make our own conjectures, but there is no substitute for being there and living through the experience, No documentary, even if it really did make a serious attempt to evaluate as objectively as possible, could ever hope to capture such things. Moore is by no means unique as far as that goes; no one on any side could hope to do it. He claims to be able to do it, and this is a large part of the problem with how he presents film -he is hiding his own biases and the limitations of his medium in an attempt to manipulate people- but most of the problems with his film itself would be true of any film that anyone tried to make about it.

I like his term "hatriot", but he seems to have failed to realize that there are hatriots on all sides of the debate, and that he is one of them. I don't mean to accuse him of hating America -I don't think he does- but I believe he is motivated by hate all the same.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Personally, I think the people fighting the war are more qualified to determine whether there's enough reason to die in it than I am from my cubicle, or Michael Moore is from anywhere.

So you kind of supress your own personal opinion? Don't you think it's important to have a very close look on those decisions, especially from a common pov? I thought the american public claims to be politically most informed with a freedom of information act etc etc..

PB.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dialo:
Ah, yes. The "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument.

Exactly. They join the military knowing and accepting the risks: namely, that you may be sent off one of the most dangerous situations known to mankind, namely war.

No one, not even the Bush Administration, wants any soldiers to die, and most soldiers don't want to die either. But soldiers die. It's a risk inherent to the job. It's not even the most dangerous job in existence -satistically, that honor goes to firefighting- though certainly it is high on the list. When people to go war, not all of them come back. This is why mandatory military service is such an abomination; even most moral relativists would find it objectively evil to force someone to accept that kind of risk against their will. However, last I checked the US has not had mandatory military service for decades; there are even legal ways to avoid going to war once you've been drafted.

I fail to see how it is anything but an insult to the soldiers' intelligence to imply that they did not understand this. Is it sad that they die? Of course it is. Does it leave a bad taste in my mouth for the families of the fallen? Yes. Is it a tragedy? Yes; in fact it's even a tragedy in the correct sense of the word, which is a rare thing today. Is it OK that they die? They themselves said when they enlisted that it's OK, and I find that opinion to carry more weight than anything Moore, Limbaugh, Bush, myself, or anyone else could possibly say.

I'm sure our brave soldiers love that they are defending your right to say it's OK for them to die.

They said it was OK, so I find no insult in honoring that choice.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
So you kind of supress your own personal opinion? Don't you think it's important to have a very close look on those decisions, especially from a common pov? I thought the american public claims to be politically most informed with a freedom of information act etc etc..

PB.

I have my own personal opinion, but I can't judge other people's sacrifices based on my opinion. Particularly people in the military, who I have a lot of respect for because I couldn't do what they are doing. I think it's very presumptuous of us to say their sacrifices are useless. (and I don't just mean the war dead, I mean the sacrifice of time away from one's loved ones also.)

Even if the war in Iraq is judged by history to be ineffective, these sacrifices have meaning simply because they signed up to protect the country, and went over there when the President determined that it was necessary. If the policy that prompted that deployment proves to be meaningless, it's not the fault of the soldiers, it's the fault of the polititians who put them there.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
So you kind of supress your own personal opinion? Don't you think it's important to have a very close look on those decisions, especially from a common pov? I thought the american public claims to be politically most informed with a freedom of information act etc etc.

Of course we have our own opinions. We choose, however, to honor the opinions of those we believe are more qualified to determine this: namely, the ones actually doing the dying. If you don't want to do this, then that's your prerogative, but be aware of what that means.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
Ah, yes. The "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument.

No one said that. War sucks. But to think that war never needs to happen, that we can all get a long without it is very idealistic and "Make Believe"

Pure anti-americanism. I'm sure our brave soldiers love that they are defending your right to say it's OK for them to die.

Er they signed up knowing they could die. You aren't making sense.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:

I like his term "hatriot", but he seems to have failed to realize that there are hatriots on all sides of the debate, and that he is one of them. I don't mean to accuse him of hating America -I don't think he does- but I believe he is motivated by hate all the same.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[B]But to think that war never needs to happen, that we can all get a long without it is very idealistic and "Make Believe"

Your strawman argument is also "make believe"

Er they signed up knowing they could die.

"No one said that" but yet we now have two people in this thread that are promoting the "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument. Have fun with your up-is-downisms.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
Your strawman argument is also "make believe"

Tell me, what was straw-men about that? Do you even know what that means?

"No one said that" but yet we now have two people in this thread that are promoting the "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument. Have fun with your up-is-downisms.

Again, no one is doing that. Stop knee-jerking and putting words into people's mouths. It's not our fault your little rant didn't go the way you wanted it to.

It's never a good thing when people are killed in war. But it is a fact of life.

I am sorry I am not as idealistic as you.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dialo:
Your strawman argument is also "make believe"

What part of his argument is a strawman? Honest question; sometimes I get a little lost in Zimph's posts.

"No one said that" but yet we now have two people in this thread that are promoting the "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument. Have fun with your up-is-downisms.

Note, by the way, that simply saying "it's OK" is not in any way meant to cheapen or demean the emotional impact of their deaths. Of course it is sad and tragic that people are dying. I am every bit as aware of this as you are. Even in the best case there is a family left behind; sometimes families are torn apart over this. I do not mean to cheapen their grief.

There is only one thing which makes the death of a soldier acceptable, and even then only just barely. Namely, the fact that every last one of them said that it would be acceptable, were it ever to happen. It was their choice, and because it was their choice it should be honored.

Do not think that I do not care. I do care, just as much as you do. The only real difference between us is that we differ on how much weight their choices should be considered to have.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What part of his argument is a strawman? Honest question; sometimes I get a little lost in Zimph's posts.

The part where he jumps from my actualy statments denouncing the "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument to the strawman version: "war never needs to happen, that we can all get a long without it.

There is only one thing which makes the death of a soldier acceptable, and even then only just barely. Namely, the fact that every last one of them said that it would be acceptable, were it ever to happen. It was their choice, and because it was their choice it should be honored.

Do not think that I do not care. I do care, just as much as you do. The only real difference between us is that we differ on how much weight their choices should be considered to have.

We probably don't differ that much. My concern was with LoganCharles' claim that opposition to the war because of military deaths is invalid because it's a "volunteer army."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
The part where he jumps from my actualy statments denouncing the "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument to the strawman version: "war never needs to happen, that we can all get a long without it.

Heh you said

Ah, yes. The "volunteer army so it's OK that they die" argument.

I was making a comment how it was a fact of life. That is all. You seem to think that such a thing is not needed no? Am I right?

We probably don't differ that much. My concern was with LoganCharles' claim that opposition to the war because of military deaths is invalid because it's a "volunteer army."

No not just opposition. But doing it in the way MM did. As if the families had any say.

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by pman68:
Bush gave this reason: "Mushroom cloud."

There are so many other rogue states that are a bigger threat than Iraq was. Let's see, N. Korea, China, etc...

NK and China have bigger problems.

First China, here, have some homework. Go to 10 things in your house, turn them over, guess where 3 of them are made, that’s right, China. Going to war with China aint gonna happen, we started working economics with China a long time ago for just this reason.

NK, they have WMD, and lots of it. If we were to attack, at the end of the when we would about to win, they would just let loose, and then say goodbye to Japan and ROK. Attacking NK is a loosing argument, they would suicide bomb the entire pacific if they got close to loosing the war. This is why we need to invade before they create WMD. Once they have it, it is imposable to win the war.

Why Iraq, take a look a map, and notice the 6 countries it boarders. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Hmm, that’s right in the middle. Also with Afghanistan, well we got the entire ME covered. This way democracy can spread, and stabilize an area ruled by vicious régimes. That is the ultimate point to Iraq. We need to take out the trash now, so our children wont have too.

I am glad we started to take care of Iraq, and this comes from someone that Michael Moore says Bush is going to sacrifice. What ever **** this bag of **** tells you, I am glad Bush had the goddamn balls to go and take care of business now. Because if that bastard ever did get WMD, then he would cause more harm to our children.

Hmmm, go to war now, or leave it to your children and grand children to take care of. It seems MM is the one who is willing to sacrifice his children.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Of course we have our own opinions. We choose, however, to honor the opinions of those we believe are more qualified to determine this: namely, the ones actually doing the dying. If you don't want to do this, then that's your prerogative, but be aware of what that means.

But what if they find out they were wrong, and that it was a bad choice for them to do?

Do we still respect their opinion?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
But what if they find out they were wrong, and that it was a bad choice for them to do?

Do we still respect their opinion?

"Wrong" in what context?

They chose for themselves, and no one else, using the best knowledge they had at the time. That knowledge may have been mistaken, but they did what they believed was the right thing to do, and thus they cannot be "wrong" in theeir own contexts, which is the only context that really matters in the end.

If you want to try and convince people not to accept this risk in the future, then go right ahead and do it. But to say that those who have already sacrificed did so for nothing is a grave insult to their memory.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"Wrong" in what context?

They chose for themselves, and no one else, using the best knowledge they had at the time. That knowledge may have been mistaken, but they did what they believed was the right thing to do, and thus they cannot be "wrong" in theeir own contexts, which is the only context that really matters in the end.

As long as they sign on the dotted line, nothing else matters.

If you want to try and convince people not to accept this risk in the future, then go right ahead and do it. But to say that those who have already sacrificed did so for nothing is a grave insult to their memory.

I did not say anything like that.

But if they find for themselves that what they do is wrong, according to their best judgement, understanding that this judgement improves with experience, it should therefore be OK for them to sacrifice themselves according to their first impressions?

so, in other words:

1 + 1 = 3 is true

-->Application of the Millenium Rule

They chose for themselves, and no one else, using the best knowledge they had at the time. That knowledge may have been mistaken, but they did what they believed was the right thing to do, and thus they cannot be "wrong" in theeir own contexts, which is the only context that really matters in the end.

if proven wrong, and that in fact, 1 + 1 = 2 is true
1 + 1 = 3 should still be applied because it was the first judgement ever made on the matter (i.e. MIllenium Rule).

Clever. I am going at the bank to use that reasonning and will return rich!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Bush is qualified either, for the simple reason that he's not there, embroiled in the thick of it all.

... and for the simple reason that he doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. Bush isn't mentally qualified to point his own Percy at the porcelain.

(all of this is IMHO of course)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
SNIP

That is the ultimate point to Iraq. We need to take out the trash now, so our children wont have too.

Hmmm, go to war now, or leave it to your children and grand children to take care of. It seems MM is the one who is willing to sacrifice his children.

Hmmm, reduce greenhouse gas emissions now or leave it to your children and grand children to take care of.

Hmmm, reduce the National Debt now or leave it to your children and grand children to take care of.

Hmmm, reduce our dependence on fossils fuels now (by reducing use AND developing new renewable sources) or leave it to your children and grand children to take care of.

Hmmm, anything else you want to do for the children now?

[Sven G]

For a typical example of a "hatriot", see also the thread about Las Vegas: the reply letter is really disgusting for its ignorance and hatred towards elementary human values.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sven G:
For a typical example of a "hatriot", see also the thread about Las Vegas: the reply letter is really disgusting for its ignorance and hatred towards elementary human values.

You got to be kidding...

"human values.. "

Heh

Calling someone "Un-American" for practicing their country given rights is pretty darn hatriot of Michael if you ask me.

I would say the hateful actions of Linda was pretty darn "hatriotic"

Yes, yes indeed.

Bill Timmons was just kicking out and smacking down the true hatriots.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You got to be kidding...

"human values.. "

Heh

Calling someone "Un-American" for practicing their country given rights is pretty darn hatriot of Michael if you ask me.

I would say the hateful actions of Linda was pretty darn "hatriotic"

Yes, yes indeed.

Bill Timmons was just kicking out and smacking down the true hatriots.

So war - or, rather, a perennial state of war and fear - is a human thing, according to you...?

Personally, anyway, I think that "patriot" is a very ugly word, which can be distorted to mean almost anything, especially in difficult and uncertain times like those we live today.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sven G:
So war - or, rather, a perennial state of war and fear - is a human thing, according to you...?

War is human. But all this projected "fear" is just that. I go throughout my day not fearing. Everyone I know personally is the same way. No fear.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Exactly. They join the military knowing and accepting the risks: namely, that you may be sent off one of the most dangerous situations known to mankind, namely war.

No one, not even the Bush Administration, wants any soldiers to die, and most soldiers don't want to die either. But soldiers die. It's a risk inherent to the job. It's not even the most dangerous job in existence -satistically, that honor goes to firefighting- though certainly it is high on the list. When people to go war, not all of them come back. This is why mandatory military service is such an abomination; even most moral relativists would find it objectively evil to force someone to accept that kind of risk against their will. However, last I checked the US has not had mandatory military service for decades; there are even legal ways to avoid going to war once you've been drafted.

I fail to see how it is anything but an insult to the soldiers' intelligence to imply that they did not understand this. Is it sad that they die? Of course it is. Does it leave a bad taste in my mouth for the families of the fallen? Yes. Is it a tragedy? Yes; in fact it's even a tragedy in the correct sense of the word, which is a rare thing today. Is it OK that they die? They themselves said when they enlisted that it's OK, and I find that opinion to carry more weight than anything Moore, Limbaugh, Bush, myself, or anyone else could possibly say.

They said it was OK, so I find no insult in honoring that choice.

Very well said.

If Moore thinks he speaks for the military rank and file, then he has been ingesting more than cheeseburgers. But I don't think he could ever grasp what motivates people to volunteer for their country because I don't think he understands unselfish motivations.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Did you see Michael Moore at Jay Leno? He was pretty good (imho) with the spontaneous singing etc. And I like his term of "hatriots" (like patriots but with hate as their basis).

PB.

Mickey Moore is a heretic. A fat pig. A reprehensible communist. A sleazy traitor. Jane Fonda with a pair. A gelatinous cancer of America.
But he's patriotic!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Mickey Moore is a heretic. A fat pig. A reprehensible communist. A sleazy traitor. Jane Fonda with a pair. A gelatinous cancer of America.

No, not really.

[CreepingDeth]

He's the taller version of Lenin with a double chin. He's a traitor.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
He's the taller version of Lenin with a double chin. He's a traitor.

YES! how dare he questions things going on in the reich! he is teh vaterlandsverräter!!1!! report him to the blockwart at once!!1!!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
YES! how dare he questions things going on in the reich! he is teh vaterlandsverräter!!1!! report him to the blockwart at once!!1!!!

Nothing wrong with questioning things. But there is filling said answers with FUD and propaganda.

[CreepingDeth]

Michael Moore is the greatest propagandist since Leni Riefenstal and Joseph Goebbels, I'll give him that. Too bad he isn't good with cinematography, then he could go film the Olympics tomorrow and call it a Christian, Jew, Texan, American conspiracy against Europe.
And he could even have them redo the ceremony and put Bush with a bomb in there!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
... and call it a Christian, Jew, Texan, American conspiracy against Europe.

actually, for that he would have to film slimey businessmen like cheney and other corporate fatcats playing golf and call it "triumph of the swill".

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by pman68:
Bush gave this reason: "Mushroom cloud."

There are so many other rogue states that are a bigger threat than Iraq was. Let's see, N. Korea, China, etc...

Imagine the outcries from the left due to the higher casualty rate invading one of the above would cause.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No one said that. War sucks. But to think that war never needs to happen, that we can all get a long without it is very idealistic and "Make Believe"

Er they signed up knowing they could die. You aren't making sense.

Like someone else suggested here once, the majority sign up because there is nothing else. They use the services as a stepping stone to further their education or whatever. Most are on the lower income family side. (no funds for post secondary ed.)

Yes it is not the tiddley-wink club or the scouts but they should not be put in harms way for baloney. And when asked to they will fight. Afghanistan is proof that there are just causes and valid reasons for to put soldiers in harms way with the proper tools.

There will be other proper times. Let's use them wisely or I should say - elect the politicians who will be WISE enough.

[CreepingDeth]

Last time I checked, Cheny was a VP…
Oh well. Without those slimey fatcats, the economy wouldn't be jack ****. The poor don't employ, so those fatcats are the investors in companies that keep it going. Of course, we can go back to the communism argument in another thread, although I believe I already know the whiny stance of half the board members.

I'd rather go read Martin Luther's work. What was it called? Like "bondage of the will" or something like that.

Anyway, back to fatass. Moore is a slob. Business men aren't slimey. If we got rid of business men, where would the economy be?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Like someone else suggested here once, the majority sign up because there is nothing else. They use the services as a stepping stone to further their education or whatever. Most are on the lower income family side. (no funds for post secondary ed.)

Well if they are just trying to USE the military to further their career hoping to really not put anything INTO it, shame on them.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Last time I checked, Cheny was a VP…
Oh well. Without those slimey fatcats, the economy wouldn't be jack ****. The poor don't employ, so those fatcats are the investors in companies that keep it going. Of course, we can go back to the communism argument in another thread, although I believe I already know the whiny stance of half the board members.

I'd rather go read Martin Luther's work. What was it called? Like "bondage of the will" or something like that.

Anyway, back to fatass. Moore is a slob. Business men aren't slimey. If we got rid of business men, where would the economy be?

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read and there have been plenty in this place including one or two or a few of mine. But this one is a beauty.

Top Prize so far for today.

[CreepingDeth]

Okay…yeah…uh…NO.
Are you saying business men are evil? Denying that Moore is fat? What?