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

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

Not to mention incredibly f&cking stupid. Anyone who agrees with Moore's line of reasoning is going to vote for McCain's opponent anyway. Anyone who doesn't (most people) is going to have a bad taste in their mouth.

Yup.

Michael Moore isn't the brightest. That should be common knowledge by now.

he's a sandwich or two shy of a picnic.

I don't have the slightest idea what that means

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'll check it later. I don't click geocities links frmo work. Thanks though.

[metta 0]

Oh brother, what?

The last part I agree with, in that he is known to suffer from PTSS with bouts of fierce rage. As to whether he would literally 'have his finger on the button' I don't really understand this idea unless what is being said is that whoever is in the Whitehouse can just flick a switch and nuke whoever he feels like without anyone saying boo! That's seems idiotic.

For the rest, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam war and there are many, McCain's opinion as to how it should have been conducted in terms of bombing civillians is neither here nor there (if we are looking at what he thought at the time). He wasn't responsible for operations and decision making.

A good question might be, both candidates opinion on what war should and shouldn't allow but we aren't going to get that discussion. Anyway, more bah, humbug!

A guy who owns seven houses will think long and hard about collatoral damage to his properties before he even touches that button

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That said where I think Moore is going wrong here is in assigning responsibility by proxy to McCain for a very controversial policy. Its not like he made the decision to go to war after all... That IMO is unfair. Does this mean that in the future it will be fine to question the suitability of today's Iraq veterans who end up going into political careers?

Good point.

The troops follow orders. Those who don't follow orders aren't heros, they're dirt.

If we dislike the war (and I do) then assign blame where it belongs - to the civilian leadership.

Well certainly you can't blame someone for a policy they had no hand in making - especially for Vietnam vets given that there was a draft in place at that time. To this day the Vietnam War is a prominent example of shady foreign policy strategies. Essentially it means that banging on about McCain being a "war hero" ignores the context of his service, and the accepted views of that war.

I think Moore's point (though he didn't explain it particularly well) is in questioning what it means to trump up someone's war record as the qualification for political office. If you think about it - it doesn't mean a whole lot. It doesn't mean he can balance the budget, it doesn't mean he can stop illegal immigration and it doesn't mean he can revolutionise the healthcare in this country. All of the things which reflect McCain's ability (or inability) to do the job of the President have absolutely nothing to do with his war service.

In other words - its largely irrelevant.

[metta 0]

That said where I think Moore is going wrong here is in assigning responsibility by proxy to McCain for a very controversial policy. Its not like he made the decision to go to war after all... That IMO is unfair. Does this mean that in the future it will be fine to question the suitability of today's Iraq veterans who end up going into political careers?

Good point.

The troops follow orders. Those who don't follow orders aren't heros, they're dirt.

If we dislike the war (and I do) then assign blame where it belongs - to the civilian leadership.

Well certainly you can't blame someone for a policy they had no hand in making - especially for Vietnam vets given that there was a draft in place at that time. To this day the Vietnam War is a prominent example of shady foreign policy strategies. Essentially it means that banging on about McCain being a "war hero" ignores the context of his service, and the accepted views of that war.

I think Moore's point (though he didn't explain it particularly well) is in questioning what it means to trump up someone's war record as the qualification for political office. If you think about it - it doesn't mean a whole lot. It doesn't mean he can balance the budget, it doesn't mean he can stop illegal immigration and it doesn't mean he can revolutionise the healthcare in this country. All of the things which reflect McCain's ability (or inability) to do the job of the President have absolutely nothing to do with his war service.

In other words - its largely irrelevant.

I beg to differ. Only those who have experienced war know fully how horrible war is.

He also took a stand against torture in opposition to W's position mainly because he has been POW and knew the ramifications of this on US POWs in future wars.

I might also add that McCain's 18 year old son is fighting as an ordinary marine in Iraq. it's a fact that McCain refused to exploit in his campaign. For a millionaire's son that is pretty admirable.

mcCain's son

Edited August 22, 2008 by metta

[chri'stina 190]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

Not to mention incredibly f&cking stupid. Anyone who agrees with Moore's line of reasoning is going to vote for McCain's opponent anyway. Anyone who doesn't (most people) is going to have a bad taste in their mouth.

Yup.

Michael Moore isn't the brightest. That should be common knowledge by now.

he's a sandwich or two shy of a picnic.

I don't have the slightest idea what that means

A few fries short of a happy meal? a few cards short of a full deck? Don't tell me you don't know what those mean. (same meaning as what Charles wrote)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I've heard the cards-deck one.

[IAMX 3,055]

The one thing that's disgusted me is we're keeping anyone who's serving or served in the military out of the realm of criticism merely because they were serving? And people wonder why we end up with people who throw puppies off cliffs, shoot, torture, and do all of the sickening #### that some of us have seen on video or in pictures? When you keep anyone out of the reach of criticism, you open the door for them to do whatever the hell they want.

The fact is, he is one of millions who served in that war. Many did without choice. Many did out of heritage.

Merely being a prisoner of war and fighting a war doesn't qualify one as President. There hasn't been a President to actually fight in a war in quite a while. 18th/19th century. Using that is much like John Kerry's flashing of his purple hearts. Means. Absolutely. Nothing.

Michael Moore's stance, on the other hand, asks a very critical question, but is mostly, and rightfully seen as political demagoguery. He's really abusing the fact that he had decent questions to ask from BFC, F911, and Sicko.

[chri'stina 190]

You have a lot to learn AJ.

j/k

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You have a lot to learn AJ.

j/k

Yes, Sensei.

[chri'stina 190]

McCain is against torture. No one is saying he can't be criticized. They are saying his getting shot down and held POW for years isn't something that should be criticized as if he started the whole war and had control over it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That said where I think Moore is going wrong here is in assigning responsibility by proxy to McCain for a very controversial policy. Its not like he made the decision to go to war after all... That IMO is unfair. Does this mean that in the future it will be fine to question the suitability of today's Iraq veterans who end up going into political careers?

Good point.

The troops follow orders. Those who don't follow orders aren't heros, they're dirt.

If we dislike the war (and I do) then assign blame where it belongs - to the civilian leadership.

Well certainly you can't blame someone for a policy they had no hand in making - especially for Vietnam vets given that there was a draft in place at that time. To this day the Vietnam War is a prominent example of shady foreign policy strategies. Essentially it means that banging on about McCain being a "war hero" ignores the context of his service, and the accepted views of that war.

I think Moore's point (though he didn't explain it particularly well) is in questioning what it means to trump up someone's war record as the qualification for political office. If you think about it - it doesn't mean a whole lot. It doesn't mean he can balance the budget, it doesn't mean he can stop illegal immigration and it doesn't mean he can revolutionise the healthcare in this country. All of the things which reflect McCain's ability (or inability) to do the job of the President have absolutely nothing to do with his war service.

In other words - its largely irrelevant.

I beg to differ. Only those who have experienced war know fully how horrible war is.

He also took a stand against torture in opposition to W's position mainly because he has been POW and knew the ramifications of this on US POWs in future wars.

But only really on that issue - and perhaps veterans rights. As far as future policy goes McC still seems to be advocating the same business-as-usual interventionist foreign policies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well its not like the guy was indicted for war crimes or anything like that...

[Peikko 1,575]

I thought McCain didn't think torture was torture at all if the Americans are doing it? I could be confused though, it's hard to keep up with the punch and counter punch that keeps going on and on and on...

[almaty 19]

the type of torture mccain and many others had to endure was world class..and a throw back to the middle ages....