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

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

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?

pretty much everyone has the opportunity to join the military, do they not? while you may take it as i'm passing judgement on those who have not served, i'm trying to tell you how it's viewed within the military. you can take it or leave it.

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.

and that's fine too.

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

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.

Not to pick on Charles, put I think he's just reverberating this mentality that we are nation built upon military strength. Some would call that Imperialism, but ironically, the ones who think that way don't like that term.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

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.

Not to pick on Charles, put I think he's just reverberating this mentality that we are nation built upon military strength. Some would call that Imperialism, but ironically, the ones who think that way don't like that term.

not really.

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

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.

Not to pick on Charles, put I think he's just reverberating this mentality that we are nation built upon military strength. Some would call that Imperialism, but ironically, the ones who think that way don't like that term.

not really.

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

[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.

Not to pick on Charles, put I think he's just reverberating this mentality that we are nation built upon military strength. Some would call that Imperialism, but ironically, the ones who think that way don't like that term.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

But more on the topic, I can't agree with Moore in picking this sort of thing to fight on. There's much more hard-hitting ways to show McCain's hypocrisy or flaws regarding his presidency. Like his inability to remember things. Or his ###-backwards stance on ANWR, where he makes statements how he wants no drilling in ANWR but wants to relegate the decision to the states fully knowing Alaska State politicians (almost entirely Republican) have a pretty forceful agenda of drilling in the ANWR.

I think Moore's just playing the political sensationalist fiddle that #### like FOX and CNN does. Put two extremes in a debate and that's your "down the middle".

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

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.

Not to pick on Charles, put I think he's just reverberating this mentality that we are nation built upon military strength. Some would call that Imperialism, but ironically, the ones who think that way don't like that term.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

But more on the topic, I can't agree with Moore in picking this sort of thing to fight on. There's much more hard-hitting ways to show McCain's hypocrisy or flaws regarding his presidency. Like his inability to remember things. Or his ###-backwards stance on ANWR, where he makes statements how he wants no drilling in ANWR but wants to relegate the decision to the states fully knowing Alaska State politicians (almost entirely Republican) have a pretty forceful agenda of drilling in the ANWR.

I think Moore's just playing the political sensationalist fiddle that #### like FOX and CNN does. Put two extremes in a debate and that's your "down the middle".

Although I don't agree with Moore...this country needs gadflies like him. He's no Ann Coulter who just says sh!t, at least he's thinking it through, even if he may be wrong.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

[natty bumppo 297]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

do you mean ... the politicians ... tell the military where to go?

that the military doesn't decide on it's own ....

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

do you mean ... the politicians ... tell the military where to go?

that the military doesn't decide on it's own ....

pretty much. what's annoying is when the politicians micromanage the operations - like when johnson once bragged the military couldn't bomb an outhouse without his permission.

[natty bumppo 297]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

do you mean ... the politicians ... tell the military where to go?

that the military doesn't decide on it's own ....

pretty much. what's annoying is when the politicians micromanage the operations - like when johnson once bragged the military couldn't bomb an outhouse without his permission.

one holer or two ... and was he in it?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

do you mean ... the politicians ... tell the military where to go?

that the military doesn't decide on it's own ....

pretty much. what's annoying is when the politicians micromanage the operations - like when johnson once bragged the military couldn't bomb an outhouse without his permission.

one holer or two ... and was he in it?

the military just sent it to washington dc

[natty bumppo 297]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

do you mean ... the politicians ... tell the military where to go?

that the military doesn't decide on it's own ....

pretty much. what's annoying is when the politicians micromanage the operations - like when johnson once bragged the military couldn't bomb an outhouse without his permission.

one holer or two ... and was he in it?

the military just sent it to washington dc

full moon over dc ... or 1/4 moon ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I don't know if I agree with you there - but I do think that if the President had to fight up-front the way kings used to in ancient times - they'd probably rethink a lot of their decisions.

[IAMX 3,055]

Well it certainly is a prevalent mindset. I'm not saying it's yours, but there are many Americans who believe this country is only as good as its military strength...that the greatness of this nation is measured militarily. Although I think it's important to maintain a military strong enough to defend ourselves, we should not defined our nation's strength on military strength.

while that's all nice and wonderful, we also need a military large enough to honor our treaty obligations throughout the world, not just one to defend ourselves.

I think it comes from a more retro, old-school respect for the military which I'd like to see eye to eye on, but I just don't these days. I once saw serving to be honorable. I also once saw the causes for war to be honorable. Now I just see the military as an arm to achieve political means, not to use people's lives carefully to achieve "freedom" and defend the nation.

that is exactly what the military is for - a tool to use after diplomacy fails.

do you mean ... the politicians ... tell the military where to go?

that the military doesn't decide on it's own ....

Bush imposed Iraqi pyramids

Amazing

[jundp 191]

John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During this bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, U.S. forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam (roughly the same tonnage dropped in the Pacific during all of World War II). Though the stated targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals. In the midst of the campaign, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month -- for 44 months.

I would like to point out that the United States was involved in World War II from December 1941 to May 1945. If the above quote is talking about tonnage dropped by the US, then the US was only involved in WWII for a total of 42 months, if you count the end of the war as VE Day. If you count it as August 14th then it would be 45 months. Therefore comparing Operation Rolling Thunder's bombing to the US bombing in WWII is a weak comparison.

If the quote is saying during all the bombing the entire time from 1939 to 1945, that's a different story.

However, the point is still that whatever you think of our involvement in Vietnam, I wouldn't discount McCain's time spent in a POW camp. I may be a tree-hugging, anti-war, anti-death, liberal, but any man who can endure what he had to endure AND still have compassion, well then I think he deserves my respect, even if I don't want to give him my vote.

/nerding out over....