Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I would prefer to have a leader who can muster up some appreciation for what war actually means.


I don't disagree with this at all (in fact, I completely agree with it), but I don't think you actually have to have military experience to do it. Again, when you look at what Nixon, Carter and Reagan did with their military service, it was all honorable, but they didn't experience being shot at or have to tread past a multitude of dead, mangled, disgusting human bodies with a cloud of flies buzzing all around them. And even if they did, they very well might have reacted completely differently. They all would have thought it was a tragedy, but one might have thought it taught him that war should be a last resort, while another might have though just the opposite, that "if we had committed to military action sooner, this would not have happened." Still another might have just shrugged and said that was the nature of war and while we don't want to be eager for this stuff, we also can't let it be a bully. And you mention the chicken hawks. But remember, those are people in the cabinet of the current president, who did have military experience, however superficial it might have been.

I believe some people who have never served have a better grasp on what war really is than some people who have served. I'm not dismissing McCain's military experience and saying it's worth nothing, just questioning the value of that experience. Remember, everybody's experience is different, and I think there are some situations where a particular person's military experience might have prejudiced him/her so much that it's actually a negative, not a positive. I question the idea that military experience is always going to make you a better president or commander-in-chief. I can definitely see situations where military experiences, especially traumatic ones, might make somebody paranoid.

I agree that the opposite is also true -- that a lack of military experience might make somebody naive and prone to use -or not use- military power inappropriately. But that's the point. Military experience might be a positive or a negative, and the lack of military experience might be a positive or a negative. It depends on the individual.

And here's one thing to consider: Nixon ended the draft in 1972. That means most people under 53 do not have military experience. So the vast majority of future presidential candidates will not have military experience. Yet they'll still have to be CIF as president. Are we going to dismiss them all as unqualified because they lack military experience? Is that wise?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ClintK]




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
I don't doubt he asked that question. For that fat pig the simple act of walking up a flight of stairs would be heroic.
He NEEDS McCain to win. He needs to get the right fired up so he can make a new movie about the VA or whatever and fund his late night butter eating binges.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Do you think that adds to the topic? How so? We're trying to have a mature conversation here.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 
I seem to remember that German fliers who survived being shot down in Britain were generally treated civilly



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Was the fire bombing of Dresden or Tokyo moral???

Were the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki moral or justified??

I think it is a tactical mistake to attack John McCain's war record.

It is risky and not needed to defeat him at the polls.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo.....it is interesting, the points you raise, although they refer to WWII....a very, very different 'conflict' compared to Vietnam.

Here's what I've read, about McCain's duty in Vietnam:

He was the son of the son of two Admirals.....so, there was some pressure on him to 'perform'.

He graduated very near the bottom of his class, at Annapolis....yet, he still got into Flight School.

He was described as a very 'poor' pilot.....I saw somewhere that he didn't much care for flying.....but he gritted his teeth, and flew about 20 hours of combat....before getting shot down. He WAS offered an oppurtunity, because of his fame, to be released....but he knew it wold not be good for his eventual career, not only in the Navy, but his time in the Senate, as it's come to pass.

I also heard he has 28 combat medals.....for 20 hours of flying IN combat?

YES, he suffered in a POW camp.....but I'm trying to make a point here...

THAT was about FORTY years ago!!!!

You can only dip into that well....the "I'm a Former POW" well so often, before you diminish it....and it starts to become stale.

BUT, at least, to his credit....he didn't DODGE Vietnam as Bush/Cheney did (or Clinton, for that matter...)

Hey, I try to be a fair and balanced complainer!!!



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike


John McCain was bombing a thermal power station when he was shot down.





I thought bombing civilian infrastructure such as power stations was against the geneva convention too?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I feel honored, ATS. Thank you for confirming my post was completely and utterly relevant by deleting it. You fascist jerks. Um, please don't ban me for something you, yourself, despise. However, if you feel you must, do so.

Back on topic.

McCain was a POW. Period. I don't give a # about the politics behind it.

However, he is not, nor was he ever Presidential material.

What is Presidential material?

Well, all of you seem to have the answer, don't you? Why don't you come to a conclusion, become a conglomerate, and let us all know.

The WORLD is waiting.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Yeah, sorry about that. Let me just say that he is a PROVEN liar. A hack film maker, and in general a disgusting human being. I would not back Moore even if he was saying, Oh I don't know " Obama is the media darling because he is black." I would still say the same thing. He was making Roger & Me while investing in GM. He was making Farenhype 9-11 while investing in Halliburton.
There that "On topic enough for ya"



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I don't see why everyone has a problem with Moore. He is good at what he does, which is exposing the truth about the U.S Government. Is he somewhat bias in his views? Yes, but can you name any un-bias documentaries? The government is supposed to represent the American people, they fail to do so. Instead they use their positions for personal agendas and gain. I'll believe anything Moore says over Government any day of the week.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


he was shot a few times flying over vietnam. it shows that he was a crap pilot not a heroic one.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
So shut up and put another hot dog in your mouth Michael Moore. There are no good answers to stupid, shallow questions.


In my opinion there are and they are abundantly obvious to the non psychotic majority who don't fly planes and drop bombs on largely defenseless people who never attacked the United States of America.


This kind of logic only works in Hollywood's echo chamber. I hate to break it to him, but the group he's panding to is much less than 50% of the country.


The more than 50% who does not vote or the less than 25% of the rest that didn't vote for Bush? Why is it then that so many Americans watched the movie at the Cinema?


The film had a general release in the United States and Canada on June 23, 2004. It has since been released in 42 more countries. As of January 2005, the film had grossed nearly $120 million in U.S. box office and over $220 million worldwide,[2] an unprecedented amount for a political film. Sony reported first-day DVD sales of two million copies, again a new record for the genre.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...


I am not exactly familiar with the method employed to determine that 'grossed' number but if the average ticket price is divided by 120 million that results in about 18 million people who PAID to see it. Obviously the fact no documentary film has ever made as much should speak something to the climate of anger and disillusionment in the US but i suppose a doomer is a doomer and wont just worry about peak oil and similar nonsense.


So when McCain gets elected and the liberals are scratching their collective heads wondering what happens, will they then realize that they don't make up a majority of the country?


Hopefully they might at least acknowledge the fact that the GOP stole yet another election? Either why more actually liberal people such as Nader wont be scratching anything as they know what's going on.


I doubt it. Anyone who wants Obama to have a snowball's chance of getting elected need to tell Moore to put a cork in it.


In the same way that Kerry's actual war record didn't help him to prevent the GOP from stealing the election? Does it even matter what Obama does other than being set up to lose the election?


McCain's military history is Kryptonite. You can't touch it. Don't even bring it up. You can't win on that front.


Luckily Obama wont go near full well knowing that blowing up mostly defenseless Vietnamese will be something the American MSM will be able to make sound heroic in McCain's defense.








Originally posted by Inannamute
I thought bombing civilian infrastructure such as power stations was against the geneva convention too?


As long as you can bomb Geneva, and anyone who questions your armed authority', to oblivion such rules and regulations does not apply to you... These things are in fact war crimes but as NATO action in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq ( for more than a decade) and Serbia proves those with power will ignore the rules as long as we let them.

Stellar

[edit on 24-8-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
So shut up and put another hot dog in your mouth Michael Moore. There are no good answers to stupid, shallow questions.


In my opinion there are and they are abundantly obvious to the non psychotic majority who don't fly planes and drop bombs on largely defenseless people who never attacked the United States of America.


This kind of logic only works in Hollywood's echo chamber. I hate to break it to him, but the group he's panding to is much less than 50% of the country.


The more than 50% who does not vote or the less than 25% of the rest that didn't vote for Bush? Why is it then that so many Americans watched the movie at the Cinema?


The film had a general release in the United States and Canada on June 23, 2004. It has since been released in 42 more countries. As of January 2005, the film had grossed nearly $120 million in U.S. box office and over $220 million worldwide,[2] an unprecedented amount for a political film. Sony reported first-day DVD sales of two million copies, again a new record for the genre.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...


I am not exactly familiar with the method employed to determine that 'grossed' number but if the average ticket price is divided by 120 million that results in about 18 million people who PAID to see it. Obviously the fact no documentary film has ever made as much should speak something to the climate of anger and disillusionment in the US but i suppose a doomer is a doomer and wont just worry about peak oil and similar nonsense.


So when McCain gets elected and the liberals are scratching their collective heads wondering what happens, will they then realize that they don't make up a majority of the country?


Hopefully they might at least acknowledge the fact that the GOP stole yet another election? Either why more actually liberal people such as Nader wont be scratching anything as they know what's going on.


I doubt it. Anyone who wants Obama to have a snowball's chance of getting elected need to tell Moore to put a cork in it.


In the same way that Kerry's actual war record didn't help him to prevent the GOP from stealing the election? Does it even matter what Obama does other than being set up to lose the election?


McCain's military history is Kryptonite. You can't touch it. Don't even bring it up. You can't win on that front.


Luckily Obama wont go near full well knowing that blowing up mostly defenseless Vietnamese will be something the American MSM will be able to make sound heroic in McCain's defense.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Moore is right about this one. Where is the heroics in bombing a populated area? But the questioned shouldn't be directed at McCain, it should be directed at the one who authorized the planned attack.

I am tired of hearing McCains party using his POW story for politcal gain. He's not the first nor last captured soldier during war. So you endured years of imprisonment, does that make you more qualified to run this country? If that's the case lets grab some criminal out of prison. I mean, if all you need is hard time to be best qaulified, then lets vote for Inmate # 0056765.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The ancient Greeks had a military code of honor never to kill women and children, to do so branded one a barbarian; thus Alexander and the later Romans were barbarians. Thus the US is a barbarian land. Firebombing civilian areas in WWII was barbaric. We could have used one nuke 20 miles out to sea from Tokyo and got them to surrender. The US intentionally killed civilians in Iraq such as in the siege of Falluja not to mention the torture of mostly innocent folk including young teen age boys. Sen. Kerry admitted his role in the official US policy in Viet Nam of killing civilians on land and in the air, McCain was involved. The folks who support the Republicans and war-hog Democrats are barbarians too. You will have many lives of suffering war until you learn the lessons of loving-kindness and detachment. The main King of India went with his army to save India from invading then savage Russians. Buddha didn’t tell him not to go but when the King visited Buddha after the successful battle Buddha simply said, “Oh King you have returned with many more enemies than when you left.” In other words in future lives he would have to face the results of his war karma, the mind streams of the enemy would return in future rebirths. Even in defensive battle the King was the small hero compared to the monks and nuns who went alone unarmed into forest with tigers and giant cobras to meditate for the inner peace of spiritual liberation. Those gentle ones are the true heroes.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Who wants a president who threatens another country with bio-chemical warfare? Isn't that what McCain basically did with his ciggy joke about Iran. First I can handle a media figure who bends the truth, its almost expected. I cant handle thinking about the chance that McCain has at presidency.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
Who wants a president who threatens another country with bio-chemical warfare? Isn't that what McCain basically did with his ciggy joke about Iran.


Well, that might be stretching things just a bit. You'd have to reach to compare that cigarette joke to CBNRE.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftHandBodhi
 


I just wish to say, LeftHand.....you covered a lot of ground, but what jumped out to me was the suggestion of using the Nukes off shore....

I'm not a great student of the War.....but I am stunned that I never thought of that!!!

Of course, one thing I think I remember was, at the time....the USA had only two 'bombs'

There was a terrible, terrible prediction of a continued Pacific battle, which would entail an invasion of Tokyo, along with tremendous loss of life, on both sides. (Picture Normandy, France times...????)

Still.....that is a concept that maybe others can chime in about.....WHY hit not one but TWO mostly civilian 'targets'....unless they had other strategic reasons? factories, power plants, etc.....

Just to make a point?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Are you serious? Joking about poisoning a whole nation through exports is ok? Especially a nation we are basically on the brink of war with. Come on there are plenty of other things to joke about and that was not one of them. A man in his position should not bring that up publicly.






top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join