Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times
Topic started on 22-8-2008 @ 04:56 AM by budski

Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?


story here
John McCain is already using the Vietnam War in his political ads. In doing so, it makes not just what happened to him in Vietnam fair game for discussion, but also what he did to the Vietnamese … I would like to see one brave reporter during the election season ask this simple question of John McCain: "Is it morally right to drop bombs and missiles in a 'heavily populated' area where hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians will perish?"
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 22/8/2008 by budski]

[edit on 22/8/2008 by budski]


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 04:56 AM by budski
A very interesting and entertaining piece, which also asks a very pertinent question.

John McCain was shot down whilst bombing a heavily populated part of Hanoi (his own description) - so can anyone tell me what IS heroic about that?

I'll go further and ask about his treatment as a POW - if someone was shot down whilst bombing NY, how would citizens react?

Treat the pilot nicely, ask that they don't do it again and send them on their way?

Here is a piece about a former POW who was imprisoned at the same time as Mr McCain:
story

The big question is addressed here.

Does the world want a superpower leader with so much anger and hatred in him.

A leader who was more than prepared to bomb civilian targets, and who has expressed his hatred on more than one occasion for those who imprisoned him.

As a UK citizen, the thought of this man becoming the next president fills me with dread - I'm not sure if he'd be worsh than bush/cheney, but I really don't want to find out.

Story here
(visit the link for the full news article)

Editted both posts to fix links

[edit on 22/8/2008 by budski]


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 05:10 AM by mlmijyd
reply to post by budski




I guess they are pertinent questions but I’d go much further and ask what is the US/UK doing with their armies in another country anyway? Is it to protect the US/UK from ………….?

As to you being worried about who the next US president will be? I’m assuming that your tongue is firmly attached to the inside of your cheek because you know very well that no US President will actually do anything that isn’t already decided that they will do by those that put them into these positions?



reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 05:18 AM by budski
reply to post by mlmijyd



Well, the UK is in other countries because bush wagged his finger and blair came running - despite the fact he knew the WMD story was a load of hogwash.

Blair was always bush's poodle, and that's why we're there.

Amongst other things.

I'm actually hoping that if obama is elected he'll be strong enough to say no when it comes to senseless war - but I ain't holding my breath...


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 05:32 AM by budski
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV



Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.
"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, was questioned about the language because of a story last month in the Nation magazine reporting his continued use of the slur.

source

Does this answer your question?
BTW I don't buy into that bullplop about how he was only talking about his guards - that particular about face only came about when he was being touted as a candidate.

I'd suggest that the vietnamese had far more reason to hate him,and that he was lucky they showed such restraint.

The comparison between WWII and vietnam is not a good one - vietnam had done nothing to the US or anyone else.

Domino theory my backside...

[edit on 22/8/2008 by budski]


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 06:07 AM by Zepherian
reply to post by Night Watchman



Micheal Moore is one of the few americans that is trying to save them from themselves. Sure, he is prone to sensationalist pranks, but his heart, and his socioeconomic philosophy, is in the right place. The country is going down the tube and it would be nice not to shoot the messenger.

As for the thread: ex military usually make crap statesmen, I have no idea why people would vote a guy who has spent such a large part of his life in a hierarchical authoritarian structure into a democratic framework. It makes no sense.


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 06:09 AM by budski
reply to post by Night Watchman



I take your point, BUT how was mcCain defending his country?

What danger or threat did vietnam pose to the US?

The domino theory was just so much fecal matter.

It was a war of aggression designed to keep making money for the military industrial complex - this was the single biggest lesson the US learned in WWII, that war makes money for a select few who have the power.


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 06:15 AM by budski
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV



Re-writing history a little there aren't we?

Nazi germany was attacking a US ally, and was an ally of a country which attacked the US.

Any bombing of germany also pales into insignificance when compared to hiroshima and nagasaki.

Any way, to get back on topic - mcCain WAS bombing civilian targets when he was shot down, regardless of what he was flying or how many times he'd done it.

I'll ask the question again - if a foreign pilot was shot down after bombing a major US city, do you think they would survive, even if they landed safely?

IMO the answer is a resounding NO.

McCain also condones the torture in Iraq and gitmo - he hasn't spoken out against it, so by default he condones it.

How does that sit with the fact he's been tortured himself (something else he exaggerated - the length of time, not the torture)
Is it a case of because he's been through it, then all POW's must go through it?



reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 06:46 AM by runetang
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The Vietnamese very nearly did kill him at the point of capture. He was bashed and bayoneted. He then spent five-and-a-half years in captivity that, once again, did not meet the Geneva Convention. He was denied medical care as mandated by the Geneva Convention, he was tortured, as strictly prohibited by the Geneva Convention. For six years.

Tell me, had he been a prisoner on the Burma-Thai Railway, would you berate him for the use of the words "Jap" or "Nip"?


For one,

The Japanese treatment of prisoner's in WWII is no comparison to the treatment of US prisoners in Vietnam. The US were treated fairly well in Vietnam compared to WWII & the Japanese regardless of how you look at it.

Secondly, considering the aggression we were purpotrating on the Vietnamese people, to butt into THEIR affairs, and stop THEM from their personal aspiratios of freedom & socialism by "gross force at all costs", I too am surprised they didn't kill Mccain upon capture. But apparently these people kept him alive and others alive for years. I'm not speaking up for them, but during war in a nation like North Vietnam, just to keep POWs alive at all, using up resources and food and water, is considered good treatment.

We can't seem to do that today in 2008 in Iraq and Afghanistan, this freedom loving, democratic nation. We've done many people equally as wrong as Mccain was done in Vietnam during this war on Terror, and the ones that havent been killed in custody or released after being held and tortured for years for absolutely positively no reason, at a cost to the USA financially, are still rotting away inside Guantanamo Bay as I type this.

There's no excuse for Mccain's hatred. As a Christian, he should FORGIVE ALL, even his so-called persecutors. IMO, he shouldn't have been there bombing them, at least JOHN KERRY wasnt afraid to admit that when he came home, but for doing that, he was attacked and lost the potential Presidency in 2004 from people just like Mccain. Beyond this, as a man of as many years as he has under his belt, he should realize by now that there are more important things in life than to harbor feelings of hatred; even people who suffered under the hands of the Japanese in WWII have learned to forgive them and even be friends with them.

But no, here we have the potential next President of the United States, setting the example, drawing the line, creating the standard by showing openly that even in his old age, he has not aquired the wisdom most men have, and has yet to realize the more important lessons about life, the things most old, veteran men, prisoners of war or not, will tell you are the TRUE reasons to live in peace and harmony with your neighbors. Instead, this guy goes flying around calling an entire modern nation "Gooks" and says he openly hates them all, regardless of who they are individually. This is 100% equal to Osama bin-Laden saying he hates all Americans, and even HE can come off more considerate of others' feelings on public video than Mccain, apparently. Guess bin-Laden is more of a PR man .. right ...


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 06:54 AM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by budski



Which US ally did Nazi Germany attack in 1939?

No? How about 1940? '41?

Oh, right, after Germany declared war on its ally's enemy, suddenly the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland, not to mention the USSR, were suddenly US allies.

If they were such important allies, why did the US wait two years to defend them?

Sorry, Budski, as much as I love your avatar, your history sucks.

I also strongly suggest you go back and compare the death tolls of Hamburg with Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Dresden.

In fact, most estimates put the death tolls of Dresden and Nagasaki roughly similar.

And McCain didn't "land safely" and he was very nearly lynched.

As for "civilian targets", is a power station that powers an arms factory a civilian target or a military target? How about one that powers a radar? A bridge that carries troop trains through the capital?

Which are civilian and which are military?

And if the government is waging a war of agression in another country against that country's government, which government infrastructure is not a military target?

And in case you've forgotten, The Republic of Vietnam was a soveriegn nation with its capital in Saigon, and the Republic of Vietnam was where the NVA was doing its fighting, it wasn't defending itself against invasion.

No matter how you slice it.


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 06:58 AM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by runetang



Runetag, see above.

As for who suffered what at their captors' hands, suggest you don't start making statements about how the guests of the Hanoi Hilton don't "stack up" in their suffering.

Suggest, instead, that you actually investigate what was done to them.

As I said, one was casual neglect, the other was targeted torture.


reply posted on 22-8-2008 @ 07:13 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by tezzajw



I feel absolutely no sympathy for any troops who are deployed overseas. There's nothing heroic in it.


I'll remember you said that in the event America ever comes under enemy fire.

I'll come to your home and see which hole you're hiding in.



Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Memorial day thoughts.
  Posted 2 days ago with 11 member flags
Global governance and the challenge to the American Constitution
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
Abraham Lincoln Filed a Patent for "Facebook\' in 1845..? (HOAX)
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags
Explosive Scoop on Obama from Breitbart.com
  Posted 9 days ago with 1 member flags