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

[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.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, really. Surely you've heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, who served in office from 1953 to 1961. If you might recall, he did serve an important role in a little military action called "World War II," which I'm sure that counts for something. B)

Uh, no, as in no President actually goes over to fight while seated. Hence, they rely on people who, as someone eluded to, are less disconnected from what is actually going on.

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

Edited August 22, 2008 by SRVT

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

[IAMX 3,055]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

Edited August 22, 2008 by SRVT

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

[IAMX 3,055]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

we were speaking about serving in the military, were we not?

[IAMX 3,055]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

we were speaking about serving in the military, were we not?

We were also talking about Presidents and how serving in the military has to do with it. At least I was. Not sure if you meant your response for someone else.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

we were speaking about serving in the military, were we not?

We were also talking about Presidents and how serving in the military has to do with it. At least I was. Not sure if you meant your response for someone else.

i'll take that as a no then - in regards to military service.

just ask yourself this: if you were in the military, would you feel more confident having a commander in chief who had served in his past, or someone who avoided military service throughout his life?

[Teacher Mark 53]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

we were speaking about serving in the military, were we not?

We were also talking about Presidents and how serving in the military has to do with it. At least I was. Not sure if you meant your response for someone else.

i'll take that as a no then - in regards to military service.

just ask yourself this: if you were in the military, would you feel more confident having a commander in chief who had served in his past, or someone who avoided military service throughout his life?

I'll give McCain his props for his service, unlike President Bush who avoided the Vietnam fiasco quite nicely..

This is a low blow by Moore. He needs to shut his mouth.

[IAMX 3,055]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

we were speaking about serving in the military, were we not?

We were also talking about Presidents and how serving in the military has to do with it. At least I was. Not sure if you meant your response for someone else.

i'll take that as a no then - in regards to military service.

just ask yourself this: if you were in the military, would you feel more confident having a commander in chief who had served in his past, or someone who avoided military service throughout his life?

I don't see the correlation between being President and being in the military as some indicator if one can be a better or worse President, unless the person has been greatly affected by the war (like PTSD), in which case, I'd say my view is then skewed in a negative light.

Or, unless the President partakes in the war.

Edited August 22, 2008 by SRVT

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Something I've always found interesting about the Vietnam War is that Democrats (Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) got us into it, while a Republican (Nixon) pulled us out. However, Democrats are still viewed as the "party of peace and tolerance" and Republicans seen as "warmongers."

Well, of course it is hard to understand from the mythologic right wing position. I think it is just that many Democrats/Progressive have not yet accepted that right wing talking points like this will always come from the party mythology and not from fact. They look for history to support this notion, don't find it and are confused. Hopefully, you can understand that.

If you truly wanted to blame a Democrat for "getting us in" to Viet Nam and you wished to have any chance of historical accuracy, then you would have to say that Harry Truman was the guy. However, the right wing base is not a group that would correctly identify the party of Harry Truman reliably. Therefore, truth be dam**d, it needs to be pinned to people the base will easily ID as Democrats for this talking point to be effective. The Republicans know that their base is not going to look up who got us into Viet Nam. They know that once the talking point is introduced it will be repeated and defended as fact by their base. They understand that their base doesn't feel ashamed when there are no facts to support their talking points. In fact, the more they conflict with reality the more strongly they seem to be defended!

Of course, under Truman there was mainly financial support to the French and a few intelligence personal. No military. Of course, you're not stupid so you know that it was Dwight Eisenhower who drastically increased aid to the French and began sending "military advisers" to Viet Nam in significant numbers, citing the Domino theory as the basis for the need for our increasing involvement in Viet Nam. But since he's a Republican, we can't have him bearing responsibility for his actions so we just conveniently forget and know that the loyal base will forget with us. Kinda sounds like the things we say we hate about communist countries, doesn't it? They remember history the way they want to.

In January of 1955, again under the Republican Eisenhower, the first direct military aid was provided to what had been declared South Viet Nam in Geneva. But again, in the world of mythology being the first to send direct military aid doesn't mean you "got us in." In October of that year, Eisenhower pledged his support to the new Republic of South Viet Nam and offered further military assistence. Again, notice that to the Liberal/Progressive mind this is going to seem like we are somehow involved in Viet Nam. Any good republican knows however that we won't be getting into Viet Nam for another 5+ years, when a Democrat FINALLY gets into office so we can blame them.

Of course, in January of 1957 the USSR said lets just divide the country permanently, admit them both to the UN and stop fighting. Eisenhower said no. "The cost of defending freedom, of defending America, must be paid in many forms and in many places...military as well as economic help is currently needed in Vietnam," the republican president said, again involving us without really involving us, because that can only be done by a Democrat, right?

The first military deaths in Viet Nam, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, occurred on July 8th, 1959. Now the liberals aren't going to be able to figure out how Kennedy, still more than a year away from taking office got them there, but it must be his doing. No?

Certainly, after Kennedy took office and during the Johnson administration as well, there were huge escalations of our involvement in Viet Nam. By no stretch of the imagination did they get us into Viet Nam. That's the trouble with liberals. They can't stretch their imagination far enough to grasp altering history. When you make false claims to support your ideology you have to understand how difficult that is for the liberal mind to accept.

Even more laughable is the idea of Nixon as voluntary peacemaker! The one who got us out. He was inaugurated in 1969 talking about "peace with honor", a concept similar to the republican stance today and a term that unfortunately has nothing to do with peace. Two months into his presidency he was threatening to resume bombing the north. Peacefully, of course! In the same month he ordered that the bombing of a third country be carried out in secret. The Cambodians felt the peace rain down on them and rejoiced! When the story broke that Nixon had escalated the war and bombed Cambodia, he ordered illegal wiretaps on reporters and 13 government officials because they were the problem, not his escalation and expansion of the war. In July, while still talking peace to Americans he sends a secret note to Ho Chi Minh threatening to resume bombing if the north does not agree to America's "peace" terms.

Later that year he is faced with a military that has immensely low morale, incredibly high rates of drug use and people at home demonstrating en mass. In November, 250,000 people go to Washington to protest the war. In the same month the army first publicaly discusses the events at My Lai. In early 1970 he resumes the bombing of the north. The peaceful bombing of course. Later that year the continuing escalation of the war results in college campuses all over America being disrupted by protests. The National Gaurd begins killing students at Kent State and other campuses. The Senate repeals the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Nixon continues talking of peace and making more war as the country descends into chaos. Not until the start of his second term does the "peacemaker" finally see the writing on the wall and agree to stop fighting. A criminal, who continuously said one thing and did another, is the guy who "got us out." Ho Chi Minh probably had more to do with getting us out. Maybe he's a republican!

And in repub-speak all that is condensed to Kennedy and Johnson got us in and Nixon got us out. Eisenhower? Who's he? Cambodia? What's that? Asian soup? I hope all of that helps you to see why, when you say silly things, democrats have a hard time accepting your revision of history.

democrats and republicans all had their fair share of mistakes and idiocy in Viet Nam. There was plenty of stupidity to go around. Unless, of course, you are writing a mythological talking point. Then it all becomes so clear!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Something I've always found interesting about the Vietnam War is that Democrats (Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) got us into it, while a Republican (Nixon) pulled us out. However, Democrats are still viewed as the "party of peace and tolerance" and Republicans seen as "warmongers."

Well, of course it is hard to understand from the mythologic right wing position. I think it is just that many Democrats/Progressive have not yet accepted that right wing talking points like this will always come from the party mythology and not from fact. They look for history to support this notion, don't find it and are confused. Hopefully, you can understand that.

If you truly wanted to blame a Democrat for "getting us in" to Viet Nam and you wished to have any chance of historical accuracy, then you would have to say that Harry Truman was the guy. However, the right wing base is not a group that would correctly identify the party of Harry Truman reliably. Therefore, truth be dam**d, it needs to be pinned to people the base will easily ID as Democrats for this talking point to be effective. The Republicans know that their base is not going to look up who got us into Viet Nam. They know that once the talking point is introduced it will be repeated and defended as fact by their base. They understand that their base doesn't feel ashamed when there are no facts to support their talking points. In fact, the more they conflict with reality the more strongly they seem to be defended!

Indeed. Much like the myth of 'tax and spend liberals' and the 'Republicans are for smaller government'...in light of the last 20 some years, those statements have reached a level absurdity unmatched....although the myth, "We're the Party of Family Values" has begun to unravel as well. They're great sale pitches...but like most sales pitches, you never quite get what they're claiming to be selling you.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

i'll take that as a no then - in regards to military service.

just ask yourself this: if you were in the military, would you feel more confident having a commander in chief who had served in his past, or someone who avoided military service throughout his life?

So anyone who hasn't been in the military has "avoided" military service? You feel that you can make character judgments based on whether someone has been in the military or not? Others may not share your prejudice. There are many people of excellent character who never joined the military and some very evil people who have. Military service tells you zero about character of any individual.

I know, the military is so special that no one could possibly understand the implications of military action without being in it. I don't want you to think I'm challenging how very special you are! The framers of the constitution thought it was a good idea to have a civilian be commander in chief. Any idea why those crazy goons would do such a thing?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Since people are debating about military, still trying to figure out why the flying #### it makes a difference at all that he served. It's distinguishing and all, but doesn't matter a damn bit in terms of better or worse as President. Unless, of course, he served while being President. Then it matters.

easy - as he's going to be commander in chief, it's a bonus if he's "been there and done that" in regards to military service. also, a commander in chief who's served in the military has more respect within the military.

He's not going to be on the ground, so he has to rely on people well below him.

How many times has President Bush alluded to General Patraeus? When he made his own decisions, how ###### up did they end up being? Greatly.

So serving in the military means nada. There's nothing that impresses me about it in terms of being President. I don't see military experience relating to economics, or jobs, or national security locally, or anything else besides war, and being in it, which President do not participate in.

So unless a President decides to actually, himself, go to war while seated, then military is just a marketing ploy.

you've never served, have you? i'm speaking from experience.

Experience of being a President?

Which one?

we were speaking about serving in the military, were we not?

We were also talking about Presidents and how serving in the military has to do with it. At least I was. Not sure if you meant your response for someone else.

i'll take that as a no then - in regards to military service.

just ask yourself this: if you were in the military, would you feel more confident having a commander in chief who had served in his past, or someone who avoided military service throughout his life?

I don't see the correlation between being President and being in the military as some indicator if one can be a better or worse President, unless the person has been greatly affected by the war (like PTSD), in which case, I'd say my view is then skewed in a negative light.

Or, unless the President partakes in the war.

as i stated earlier, a president with military service commands greater respect among the military.

[IAMX 3,055]

as i stated earlier, a president with military service commands greater respect among the military.

I'm not terribly concerned with how someone in the military would vote/think though.