Oh, automatically defensive, are we? Point out where in my post I said 'Michael Moore is a liar.'IRONCHEF wrote:
Is Michael Moore wrong in his letter to his maillist? If so, please point out his "lies." Otherwise, keep your biased anti-reality behavior to yourself. MM is a patriot the likes of which many aspire to.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*horse snort*IRONCHEF wrote:
...according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland...
4. I (Michael Moore) must atone for the atrocity I have perpetuated on the author of Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury) by publishing my 'documentary' under a coincidentally-similar name and tagline.
Also, if you wish, please debate with me privately any "lies" in Fahrenheit 9/11 he made and you will further find yourself at the wrong end of reality.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- So has the fecal matter struck the metallic oscillator yet with Iraq?
I've read enough of your posts to "assume," and I'm guessing you quoted me, quoting him quoting the maryland survey as if it were false. If you dispute this, then I apologize. If not, then feel free to debate.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Oh, automatically defensive, are we? Point out where in my post I said 'Michael Moore is a liar.'IRONCHEF wrote:
Is Michael Moore wrong in his letter to his maillist? If so, please point out his "lies." Otherwise, keep your biased anti-reality behavior to yourself. MM is a patriot the likes of which many aspire to.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*horse snort*
4. I (Michael Moore) must atone for the atrocity I have perpetuated on the author of Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury) by publishing my 'documentary' under a coincidentally-similar name and tagline.
Also, if you wish, please debate with me privately any "lies" in Fahrenheit 9/11 he made and you will further find yourself at the wrong end of reality.
Dispute over the accuracy and creativity involved in the making of Fahrenheit 9/11 'documentary' is pretty much a dead horse that doesn't need any more beatings. Both sides of the issue have just about crystallized their opinions by now, and I don't hold the film as being important enough to continue arguing about, having long ago watched a copy made available by my local library. Besides, I'd much rather spend my time looking for a Hellfire Torch on Diablo II than get involved in a ceaseless PM debate with little or no chance of either side converting the other.IRONCHEF wrote:
I've read enough of your posts to "assume," and I'm guessing you quoted me, quoting him quoting the maryland survey as if it were false. If you dispute this, then I apologize. If not, then feel free to debate.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Oh, automatically defensive, are we? Point out where in my post I said 'Michael Moore is a liar.'IRONCHEF wrote:
Is Michael Moore wrong in his letter to his maillist? If so, please point out his "lies." Otherwise, keep your biased anti-reality behavior to yourself. MM is a patriot the likes of which many aspire to.
Also, if you wish, please debate with me privately any "lies" in Fahrenheit 9/11 he made and you will further find yourself at the wrong end of reality.
Agreed. NO evidence would solve that dispute. But if you're interested..Mike Moore's site has the disputed sections of his movie and the evidence supporting all his claims and they've gone unmatched. I had to fact check his claims myself before I realized he wasn't just BSing through that film.
I view Mike's site as often as I look at other political commentators'. As to the letter:IRONCHEF wrote:
Agreed. NO evidence would solve that dispute. But if you're interested..Mike Moore's site has the disputed sections of his movie and the evidence supporting all his claims and they've gone unmatched. I had to fact check his claims myself before I realized he wasn't just BSing through that film.
It could be argued that what is going on in Iraq is completely different than what WWII was. We aren't really faced with a standing army to fight. The 'war on terrorism' is sort of like 'the war on crime,' 'the war on drugs,' and 'the war on disease.'
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-27 12:42:50)
QFT It's a bit easier when the enemy has the balls to wear a uniform.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It could be argued that what is going on in Iraq is completely different than what WWII was. We aren't really faced with a standing army to fight. The 'war on terrorism' is sort of like 'the war on crime,' 'the war on drugs,' and 'the war on disease.'
Well, the pacific theater was new to our forces..and I'm guessing our unlearned military at the time of WWII was also ill-prepared for the Normandy coast, the german resistence, and other such conflicts that occurred...hell, most of the soldiers who did WWII were noobs that did the unthinkable. Our forces in Iraq knew and trained for urban and guerrilla warfare at least to a minimal degree..and they had precedence in other conflicts with such combat.
But it's easy to see that the parallel MM drew was that of the time comparisons.
But it's easy to see that the parallel MM drew was that of the time comparisons.
Additionally, he may have apologized, but he's pretty far from atoning for it, especially with this 2007 release. I'm not entirely against Michael Moore's works, though. I own a copy of Canadian Bacon.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*horse snort*IRONCHEF wrote:
...according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland...
4. I (Michael Moore) must atone for the atrocity I have perpetuated on the author of Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury) by publishing my 'documentary' under a coincidentally-similar name and tagline.
They're still different kinds of wars. We're not exactly fighting on WW2-style fronts, here. Also, when confronted with a nation as militant and unbending as the Empire of Japan, we just dropped a nuke on it. We don't exactly have the luxury of doing that now (discounting depleted uranium, if you want to get technical).IRONCHEF wrote:
Well, the pacific theater was new to our forces..and I'm guessing our unlearned military at the time of WWII was also ill-prepared for the Normandy coast, the german resistence, and other such conflicts that occurred...hell, most of the soldiers who did WWII were noobs that did the unthinkable. Our forces in Iraq knew and trained for urban and guerrilla warfare at least to a minimal degree..and they had precedence in other conflicts with such combat.
But it's easy to see that the parallel MM drew was that of the time comparisons.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-27 13:00:33)
Michael forgot to compare the huge differential in casualties if he's going to compare the timeframes of two completely different conflicts.IRONCHEF wrote:
Well, the pacific theater was new to our forces..and I'm guessing our unlearned military at the time of WWII was also ill-prepared for the Normandy coast, the german resistence, and other such conflicts that occurred...hell, most of the soldiers who did WWII were noobs that did the unthinkable. Our forces in Iraq knew and trained for urban and guerrilla warfare at least to a minimal degree..and they had precedence in other conflicts with such combat.
But it's easy to see that the parallel MM drew was that of the time comparisons.
I agree with Moore's letter. We can't win this war asides from brute force, and that would give us a huge backlash by the international community. We have to pull out, but not all at once. We cant leave Iraq in shambles, but evidently our "intervention" has not been entirely successful. We phase out, let them handle it, and if they ask for our help we give it to them. We don't just barge in saying "LOL WERE IN UR COUNTRY LIBERATIN UR PPLZ".
Good post, Hurricane. I agree for the most part. I also agree with Stingray in that our enemies unfortunately don't have the balls to wear a uniform.
The WW2 is a bit bsish if anyone doesnt know when the US entered WW2 they were ranked number 17th in army power which put Romania infront of them and it wasnt only the US which was fighting WW2 and there was China and Australia in the Pacific and Russia/England (and others) In the European theatre as well as England and the African rebels in the African theatre. I still agree there should be a withdrawal.
Major_Spittle is hilarious. Such a blatant disregard for logic, reason, fact and other such weird and wonderful concepts. The man/woman is a walking contradiction.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-28 02:50:05)
Who are you to say a withdrawal is cowardice?? We've have been fighting there for almost 5 years now, I have been to Iraq twice Afghanistan and Pakistan, I'm sick of it so why should i let you call me and my brothers in arms cowards because we are sick of fighting for a cause we do not believe in. How about i send you and your friends over there let you watch them die then call you a coward for leaving.ATG wrote:
That would be cowardice.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* Withdrawal, perhaps?... It would save us a lot of cash, and we could focus on domestic defense, border security, and better security protocols in airports.
That's true.Stingray24 wrote:
Michael forgot to compare the huge differential in casualties if he's going to compare the timeframes of two completely different conflicts.IRONCHEF wrote:
Well, the pacific theater was new to our forces..and I'm guessing our unlearned military at the time of WWII was also ill-prepared for the Normandy coast, the german resistence, and other such conflicts that occurred...hell, most of the soldiers who did WWII were noobs that did the unthinkable. Our forces in Iraq knew and trained for urban and guerrilla warfare at least to a minimal degree..and they had precedence in other conflicts with such combat.
But it's easy to see that the parallel MM drew was that of the time comparisons.
I propose a new strategy.
Well, not really a new strategy - you used it in the Iran/Iraq war.
I say that we have few troops in Iraq - and few troops coming home.
The reason the first few stages of the war were so successful was because (in my opinion) we hit them with the high-tech, high-stuff.
So we pull most of the troops out - to the carriers waiting offshore. Give them a go at running it for themselves. At signs of trouble, we can give those Tomahawks a dusting off. If the shit really hits the fan, then we can quickly redploy the majority of our troops there.
I know there are many problems with this, but would it work?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Amen. I have no concept of what it is like to fight in a war but I feel for ya. Cowardice would be for the governments who have troops out there to not confront their judgement errors and to leave their troops out in the dustbowls of the middle east to fight wars of attrition with no discernible or acheivable goals.c4hitman wrote:
Who are you to say a withdrawal is cowardice?? We've have been fighting there for almost 5 years now, I have been to Iraq twice Afghanistan and Pakistan, I'm sick of it so why should i let you call me and my brothers in arms cowards because we are sick of fighting for a cause we do not believe in. How about i send you and your friends over there let you watch them die then call you a coward for leaving.ATG wrote:
That would be cowardice.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* Withdrawal, perhaps?... It would save us a lot of cash, and we could focus on domestic defense, border security, and better security protocols in airports.
Now when I read ATG's post I did not think cowardice on the part of our troops, but cowardice on the part of the US govt. Running away, in the middle of a POLITICAL fight, is how I took his post, and how I am sure he meant it. Please correct me if I am wrong.CameronPoe wrote:
Amen. I have no concept of what it is like to fight in a war but I feel for ya. Cowardice would be for the governments who have troops out there to not confront their judgement errors and to leave their troops out in the dustbowls of the middle east to fight wars of attrition with no discernible or acheivable goals.c4hitman wrote:
Who are you to say a withdrawal is cowardice?? We've have been fighting there for almost 5 years now, I have been to Iraq twice Afghanistan and Pakistan, I'm sick of it so why should i let you call me and my brothers in arms cowards because we are sick of fighting for a cause we do not believe in. How about i send you and your friends over there let you watch them die then call you a coward for leaving.ATG wrote:
That would be cowardice.
Can't withdraw. If we withdraw and Iraq goes into civil war and reverts back to a regime as bad as or worse than Saddam's, the 14 year old internet liberals will never let us hear the end of it.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-28 03:54:42)
lol, every one of those 'wars' you named is also unwinnable by WWII standards.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It could be argued that what is going on in Iraq is completely different than what WWII was. We aren't really faced with a standing army to fight. The 'war on terrorism' is sort of like 'the war on crime,' 'the war on drugs,' and 'the war on disease.'
France, Germany, and Russia all had major oil deals with Sadam. They are the reason sanctions did not work. These countries underminded the UN's oil for food program and bent things to serve them. The Russians made sure that their weapons were able to be bought by Sadam, the French built huge underground bunkers and military infrastructures for Sadam, all these countries sided with and supported Sadam while he was breaking the cease fire agreements of the 1st Gulf War, Kicking out weapons inspectors, firing upon jets patroling no fly zones, using the oil for food program to starve his people while rebuilding his military, and breaking UN resoulutions. These three countries had huge oil, weapons, and building contracts with this regime that had just got through invading Kwait, threatening Saudi Arabia, and trying to assasinate an ex-US president. Why the hell do you think they cared so much when the US decided to take him down???commissargizz wrote:
what the hell has this got to do with Europe?Major_Spittle wrote:
But yes I do want the US to withdrawl and tell Europe they can take care of their own messes in the Middle East from now on.
Trust me, Sadam was truely a European Problem. Europe has a rich history of making deals with the devil until he decides to cut their throats.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- So has the fecal matter struck the metallic oscillator yet with Iraq?