Fahreneit 9/11 Redux

I appreciate the difficulty of Gore personally, in the Senate, having obviously decided to exit with some grace. OTOH, the Democrats--led by Gore--, who profess a concern for Black Americans, thoroughly soiled themselves. Imagine Bush-not Gore-- having to *start with a shutting up of Black Congresspersons! Further, the Dems' later behavior shows an appreciation of the issue; they had a 'late awakening' and haven't let go of the Florida 'Black voters' purge' as an issue* [see ** at the very end]; now, of course, that it's perhaps too late.

Indeed, the argument can be made that that moment is the start of the Dems 'rolling over' for the Republicans, culminating in the Patriot Act, invasion approval, etc.

Why might the Dems have been so compliant. Perhaps because they had no good ideas of their own, what to do.

Consider what appears to be Moore's proposals: 1) Invade Afghanistan massively and early. 2) a little vague on whether to go into Iraq--dick around till there's UN approval?; 3) once in Iraq, far more troops were and still are needed [somewhat the Kerry position].

It's by no means clear that 1) has any merit, esp. in possibly shifting the present 'recruiting effect' that's occurring in Iraq. Cementing links with al qaeda and Taliban; making the Taliban more into national heroes. 3) is a least questionable, and distinctly reminds one of Vietnam. Iraq is a *large place, and 500,000 troops, say, would arguably be *more targets, and more inflaming of Iraqi sensitivities to 'invasion.'

Moore's comparison of Osama and McVeigh is particularly silly, by the way. The 'outlaw' or 'criminal' idea is not very advanced beyond Bush.

In short, while it's great to give Republicans a black eye, expose their corruption and lies, Moore (in F 9-11) 1) has little analysis of the Iraq invasion, except as an oil grab; 2) has no analysis of al queda, except as a 'criminal' group (duh!....aren't acts of or during war, 'criminal' by definition!); 3) has no analysis of the domestic security issue, except bringing out the nice fact that the Patriot Act was 'waiting in the wings', probably mostly drafted.

Two virtue of the film, besides what's been mentioned: Emphasizing profiteering (see speech, below). Underscoring the emotional devastion of the war on the unfortunates in it. And to underscore that few of them know what's going on. Iow, what are they being sacrificed for?

An old speech worth reading, is this, by a decorated Marine Major General:

WAR IS A RACKET
{date, late 1930s)

by Smedley Darlington Butler

Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
Educated Haverford School
Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914,
and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
Distinguished service medal, 1919
Retired Oct. 1, 1931
[...]
Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.

Chapter One

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

[...]
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago [ca 1920]. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

[...]
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.


That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made.

They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby. [end Butler excerpts]

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
-----------


[**] Recently in the news was an item on a fresh attempt of Florida Republicans to keep Blacks who may have been felons (or who bear the same name as a felon) off the voters' lists.
 
Last edited:
a concise rebuttal, but conceptually flawed
 
Last edited:
One thing Moore should have mentioned--some damn body should mention--is the number of Iraqi dead from the invasion. The administration claims it isn;t keeping tally, but it looks like 10,000-15,000 soldiers and about 10,000 civilians died during and after the invasion.

I find it absolutely incredible that no one--not democrats, not Moore, and certainly not republicans--have mentioned this number to this day. They make the war seem like no one died but a few bad guys, that at worst it was maybe a waste of money with no harm done.

---dr.M.
 
(revised, 7-16)
right on, dr.

moore shows some Iraqi casualties, and clearly suggests numerous others with footage of bombing of buildings (the one that has a roof on fire), but he pulls his punch.

he has more footage of US dead wounded and maimed.

morally it's dubious, but tactically (for US viewers) it's a good approach, and its reason (not to appear to 'sympathize' with the 'enemy') is obvious. (his film is already labeled an al qaeda training manual by Coulter, i believe).

reflection reveals a possible reason: Liberals generally do NOT have a problem with Afghani civilian deaths, under the 'successful' Afghan intervention (of which most still approve); sometimes they hold it up as a model for doing things right.

further, Moore suggests the US should have gone in earlier, and more massively into Afghanistan. that does not sound like it would produce fewer civilian casualities.

so Moore's commonplace liberal foreign policy ideas necessarily include inflicting civilian casualities, just not doing so, "Texas cowboy" style.


(I realize that Moore is not *exactly* a liberal, and has streaks of independence, including from Democrats. But I consider him only mildly 'left'-- say as much as Kerry.)
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
Rather good Al Jazeera review of F 9-11.

Raises a good question about Moore's thesis of Saudi influence on the Iraq war: What exactly is the Saudi benefit?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3B62791E-02A1-4251-9137-E3A5FBE2837E.htm

1) Diversion from their own involvement, which was significant. As you know, the Saudis had been paying protection money to terrorists for decades.

Months before the Iraq invasion, while GWB was still "proving" the necessity of it and mentioning Saddam in every speech and press conference, a newspaper poll showed that 60% of Americans, when asked the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers, said they were Iraqis.

2) The Saudi royals may have believed that the U.S., once it had a powerbase in Iraq, could move its troops out of Saudi Arabia, which would end one of the major grievances against their government. It would have shifted the problem outside their borders, and they wouldn't suffer from being so closely associated with U.S. interests.
 
Some other parts of a rational analysis (of the effects of US going into Iraq) by a Saudi royal would, I propose, be (in part):

1)Putting 100,000 Americans into Iraq is going to inflame Arabs about American military presence and *draw attention* to American military and non military presence elsewhere, esp. in Saudi Arabia.

(which is what happened)

2)Giving Americans control of the *second largest oil fields, when Saudi and Gulf States control the largest is a potential conflict; it's an American lever to pull down and/or control oil prices.

[a thought suggested by the al Jazeera review writer]
 
Last edited:
Well, since Moore didn't report of the deaths of the war and only showed the American casualties, once again he shows his political beliefs. As for the casualties of of 10 to 15 thousand Iraqi soldiers killed during the war. That is war. Soldiers die. We all expect that we serve. Will you complain about the documentary that doesn't show 25 thousand Nazi's dieing in battle? As for the civilians that died. That is a consequence of war. It's called collaterlal damage. None of us like it. And it's unfair to the civilians. But when you put your headquarters and bases in civilian neighborhoods that will happen. Ask the Nazi's how many civilians were killed by the allied bombings. Ask the Brits how died in the bombings of London.

You guys really amaze me. You have no idea what being a soldier is like. You have no idea of what war is about. You sit here and judge it by a political movie.

As for the Saudi's. Yes, they play the game. They have to. I know, I've been there. Maybe they're starting to tighten up on security. I doubt it. They're playing the game of securing their international prestige and their alliance with the muslim factions they support. Terrorist? Yes. We all suspect there was more behind them finding the terrorist that beheaded the hostage so quickly.

But to sit here and complain about 15 thousand Iraqi soldiers being killed. Tell me, if someone is shooting at you what the hell would you do? Add a count to the total or become a count?

Just for everyone's information I was a medic. I am currently a nurse. And, to be honest. I am shocked by those who sit back and complain of enemy that are killed. Try holding a buddy in your arms who was shot by one of those you complain about being killed. It's nice to sit in an office and debate. But that's what soldiers fight for right? Your freedom of speech? And I've executed my right to that.
 
Lord DragonsWing said:
Well, since Moore didn't report of the deaths of the war and only showed the American casualties, once again he shows his political beliefs. As for the casualties of of 10 to 15 thousand Iraqi soldiers killed during the war. That is war. Soldiers die. We all expect that we serve. Will you complain about the documentary that doesn't show 25 thousand Nazi's dieing in battle? As for the civilians that died. That is a consequence of war. It's called collaterlal damage. None of us like it. And it's unfair to the civilians. But when you put your headquarters and bases in civilian neighborhoods that will happen. Ask the Nazi's how many civilians were killed by the allied bombings. Ask the Brits how died in the bombings of London.

You guys really amaze me. You have no idea what being a soldier is like. You have no idea of what war is about. You sit here and judge it by a political movie.

As for the Saudi's. Yes, they play the game. They have to. I know, I've been there. Maybe they're starting to tighten up on security. I doubt it. They're playing the game of securing their international prestige and their alliance with the muslim factions they support. Terrorist? Yes. We all suspect there was more behind them finding the terrorist that beheaded the hostage so quickly.

But to sit here and complain about 15 thousand Iraqi soldiers being killed. Tell me, if someone is shooting at you what the hell would you do? Add a count to the total or become a count?

Just for everyone's information I was a medic. I am currently a nurse. And, to be honest. I am shocked by those who sit back and complain of enemy that are killed. Try holding a buddy in your arms who was shot by one of those you complain about being killed. It's nice to sit in an office and debate. But that's what soldiers fight for right? Your freedom of speech? And I've executed my right to that.

They're dying, yes, but in a war started on false premises.
They're all dying, yes, but for freedom of speech? Hardly. not when the war was a foregone conclusion from the outset; not when the whole of the USA was muzzled with the mindset, ' you're either with us or against us', leaving NO freedom of choice, speech or thought.

So. The soldiers are dying. And those of us who can not accept the false premises for the war are aghast at the deaths - regardless of which side they're on, ESPECIALLY as they're dying, I repeat, for FALSE premises. For lies. For the greed of a select few.

So they're dying. For freedom of choice?
 
Somme said:
They're dying, yes, but in a war started on false premises.
They're all dying, yes, but for freedom of speech? Hardly. not when the war was a foregone conclusion from the outset; not when the whole of the USA was muzzled with the mindset, ' you're either with us or against us', leaving NO freedom of choice, speech or thought.

So. The soldiers are dying. And those of us who can not accept the false premises for the war are aghast at the deaths - regardless of which side they're on, ESPECIALLY as they're dying, I repeat, for FALSE premises. For lies. For the greed of a select few.

So they're dying. For freedom of choice?

The president went by the intelligence he had. Was this war false? Tell that to the CIA. They fed the intelligence. Even the Brits agree they would of gone to war with the intelligence that was available.

Here's the choice. We're at war due to our intelligence service. False or not. Do the soldiers want to leave the situation as it is? No. They fought to give this country a freedom of choice. They fought and died to give this country a choice in government. Yes, for freedom of choice. Not for us. But for others. That is what we're about now. The world has changed. We are no longer isolationist. We lost that at Pearl Harbor.

The Iraqi's have more freedom's now than they ever had. They're able to speak out, protest and soon make a vote that counts. Before, to do that meant death. Yes, for Freedom of Choice.
 
Dragon, if you aren't going to see the movie, it's silly to discuss it. It's very PRO-soldier. There are interviews with soldiers and families of soldiers.

I'll never understand how it is more supportive of soldiers to pretend that they were sent to war for some good purpose. They were lied to. Their Commander in Chief didn't respect their sacrifice enough to tell them that there was no link to 9/11, no credible evidence of WMD.

You don't speak for all veterans, by the way. I have a close friend who flew 200 combat missions in Vietnam and thinks it's inexcusable what this president has done. So don't pretend that this is an anti-military thread. That's bullshit. This is an anti-lying president thread.

If you had read any of the books that have come out of this administration - by Richard Clarke, by Ambassador Wilson, by Paul O'Neill - You'd know that Bush PRESSURED the CIA and Clarke to tell him what he wanted to hear. Every time Clarke left a report for him that did not link Al Queda to Saddam, it would be given back to him labeled, "Update and Resubmit." Bush is too cowardly to admit that he wanted this war and was willing to let Osama go to get it. So he's scapegoating Tenet.

Why do we waste our breath on people who refuse to read the evidence or even look at it in a movie that they're critiquing.
 
Lord DragonsWing said:
Here's the choice. We're at war due to our intelligence service. False or not. Do the soldiers want to leave the situation as it is? No. They fought to give this country a freedom of choice. They fought and died to give this country a choice in government. Yes, for freedom of choice. Not for us. But for others. That is what we're about now. The world has changed. We are no longer isolationist. We lost that at Pearl Harbor.

The Iraqi's have more freedom's now than they ever had. They're able to speak out, protest and soon make a vote that counts. Before, to do that meant death. Yes, for Freedom of Choice.

Here's the choice: reward GWB for lying, or hold him accountable. Ignore the facts, or admit you trusted an incompetent liar, get him out of office, and hope that more people don't die for his mistakes. Nobody in this thread has suggested that we should leave iraq just as it is now. It's too late to go back, but it's not too late to install a leader who has actually been in combat and might respect the sacrifice more than someone whose only concern has always been himself, his personal wealth, and his family's power.

Freedom of choice for others? What about the thousands of dead civilians? What about the many more who will now die if there's a civil war? And WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE FOR THE DEAD FROM 9/11? To hear you Bush-defenders talk, you'd think you'd missed all the recent news stories proving that there was NEVER a link to Saddam except the one provided by an employee of Ahmad Chalabi's!!!!!!!!!!!! When someone in Powell's office questioned the validity of that link while reading his U.N. speech, word came back from the speechwriter's office that "none of the higher-ups want to hear that."

Bush and Cheney refused to listen to their own state department, Wilson, Clarke, anybody who told them that the evidence was not credible. They were determined to have this war, and that means that they had no concern for the truth or for bringing Bin Laden to justice.

I challenge you to find out the facts that the rest of us have seen with our own eyes, and have read, and to come back still spouting nonsense in defense of this president and his war.

P.S. Are you 100% sure that none of the soldiers in Iraq right now are pissed off about this and woudl like to see the president held accountable? Michael Moore went to Iraq, gave them the microphone, and asked them. He also went to some veterans hospitals, where he met some limb-less gentlemen who were a bit peeved to learn, upon returning home, that their president's support for the troops did not extend to them in any material way.

It's all flag-waving with Dubya. Close VA hospitals, reduce benefits to military families, and waste money on Halliburton's no-bid contract, but by all means, support the troops.

this is hopeless.
 
Last edited:
shereads said:
deleted double post

FYI, I have seen this movie and it's nothing but a politcal commerical finaced by Hollywood for the Democrats.
I do not claim to speak for all veterans, just for myself. Even during Vietnam veterans protested against the war. That is their right. We each fought for it.

As for this being an unjust war? The president was given information from the intelligence services that he acted on. I don't care if he's Republican or Democrat. He acted on the intelligence. You can not blame the President for that. No matter who he is.

Do I consider this an anti-military thread? No, I don't. I just don't think people realize what war is about. I do consider this an anti-military thread. But more approrpriately a pro-democratic thread. I am neither Republican or Democrat.

But it is interesting how when I speak out against what others say are true I get attacked. All I'm saying is look at the facts. Learn them for yourselves. Make your own judgement.

Then ask your friend who flew 200 missions over Nam. How many soldiers did he kill? How many civilians? That's war. These guys are complaining about enemy soldiers killed and the collateral damage done.

I'll do you all a favor and just leave this thread. I don't see things the way you do and you won't accept anything other than your beliefs. So much for an intelligent discussion.

May the Gods protect you all.

LDW
 
doormouse crawls in with her cheese platter and sits in the corner.

cheese anyone?
 
Lord DragonsWing said:
FYI, I have seen this movie and it's nothing but a politcal commerical finaced by Hollywood for the Democrats.


how many times are you going to refuse to acknowledge that a CANADIAN firm, whose name I provided you, with a link to their website, backed this film after Hollywood dumped it?

Dragon, you are beginning to argue like Amicus: If someone proves their point and you don't want to acknowledge it, you disappear from the thread until you think it's forgotten.

Hollywood dumped this film.

Hollywood dumped this film.

Michael Moore is not a Democrat.

Michael Moore is not a Democrat.

As for this being an unjust war? The president was given information from the intelligence services that he acted on. I don't care if he's Republican or Democrat. He acted on the intelligence. You can not blame the President for that. No matter who he is.

You're ignoring facts again. The President ORDERED RICHARD CLARKE TO FIND EVIDENCE LINKING SADDAM TO 9/11. He could not, so he resigned.

The President HIRED AMBASSADOR WILSON TO EVALUATE THE THREAT TO THE USA FROM IRAQ. Wilson returned a report that said there was no more than a "contained" threat and no evidence of WMD that was credible. Then Wilson saw the president go on teleivsion and lie, and he went to the presss. Wilson's wife was then outed by the White House as a CIA agent.

Wilson's wife, the CIA agent, was involved in anti-terror intelligence work.

That's how much your president cares about terrorism. It's nothing to him but a political tool.

Wake up.
Then ask your friend who flew 200 missions over Nam. How many soldiers did he kill? How many civilians? That's war. These guys are complaining about enemy soldiers killed and the collateral damage done.

They're pointing out that it's illogical to pretend you are liberating people when you're killing them.

And you can't be serious in thinking that my friend is not aware that he killed civiliians. He will die thinking about them. He wishes to God that he believed there had been a purpose.

THAT's the point. We killed people over something that was none of our business, and we were lied to to get us to do it, in Vietnam and then in Iraq.

Do you seriously think GWB was worried about Iraqis having freedom of choice? His father helped Saddam gas Iranians.

I'll do you all a favor and just leave this thread. I don't see things the way you do and you won't accept anything other than your beliefs. So much for an intelligent discussion.

Of course you're leaving the thread. If you stayed, you might have to acknowledge that you were wrong about the Hollywood connection with the film, and that you're also ignoring the fact that GWB insisted on being given the "intelligence" that he wanted to hear.

If you leave the thread now, you can continue to believe you were carrying on an intelligent argument. No, you've ignored every fact here that disagreed with your preconceptions.

Interesting that you deny being a Republican. So do most of them lately. Theyll still vote for Bush.
 
Last edited:
"And you can't be serious in thinking that my friend is not aware that he killed civiliians. He will die thinking about them. He wishes to God that he believed there had been a purpose. "

That was well said. I'm sure every soldier would feel like that.

Enjoy the cheese, time for this little mouse to get dinner ready. :)
 
I can't comprehend the degree of blindness about this president. What would have to happen to make people see him for what he is? I've lost hope for this country. I don't even believe in democracy anymore.

They say we get the government we deserve. It's not true. I get the government you deserve, and that's so unfair it makes me ill.
 
shereads said:
I can't comprehend the degree of blindness about this president. What would have to happen to make people see him for what he is? I've lost hope for this country. I don't even believe in democracy anymore.

They say we get the government we deserve. It's not true. I get the government you deserve, and that's so unfair it makes me ill.

I think 911 touched the world, hence the emotions poured out in this thread.

No, I haven't seen the movie, and not even sure if it's even been released in Australia.

We have our own stupid political parties, one no better than the next. Liberal lost power when they tried to bring in the GST.
Labor won party and basically fucked up so bad, we opted to go with the GST, thinking anything had to be better.

When the options are limited, it leaves one with little place to go.

I don't know or even understand half the discussions on this thread, having never seen the movie, so I'll just slip back to my little hole and nibble my cheese :)
 
Lord: But to sit here and complain about 15 thousand Iraqi soldiers being killed. Tell me, if someone is shooting at you what the hell would you do? Add a count to the total or become a count?

Third option: Leave his country; go home to your own.
 
shereads said:
I can't comprehend the degree of blindness about this president. What would have to happen to make people see him for what he is? I've lost hope for this country. I don't even believe in democracy anymore.

They say we get the government we deserve. It's not true. I get the government you deserve, and that's so unfair it makes me ill.

Well, you may keep saying that I get the government you deserve. The choice is yours. Vote. Only the people make the difference.

As for comparing me to Amiducs as a runner. I looked at your link. And I did research on it. It's an independent film company with links to the production agencies in the CA. So yes, you're right, above the board this film wasn't financed by Hollywood.

As for Moore being a democrat? I really don't care of his political affiliations. He made nothing more than a political commerical and had the public pay for it.

Shereads, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about this country. This country, in my opinion, is the best country the world has to offer. It truly is the land of opportunity. People die to come here.

THe one thing we have that most other countries don't is the freedom of speech. No matter how the left attacks me on lit, I have a voice. We can talk about things and not be persecuted. Not by isp, chat nick or telephone number. To this day, many cherish that dream. And as Americans, we are the defenders of freedom.

To change things you have to Vote. You have to make your voice count. It's up to you. And no, I don't run like Amicus. I just don't like to argue. I guess I'm old and bullheaded.

VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
doormouse grabs the bullheaded one by the horns and drags him off to her bedroom :mad: :p
 
Last edited:
Lord

And as Americans, we are the defenders of freedom.

Jeez, I thought Americans were defenders of corrupt dictatorship, as Pinochet in Chile (1973-90), leaders in Honduras; military coupists in El Salvador (esp. in the 1980s); Diem and his successors in S. Vietnam 1955-1975; the Shah of Iran(1941-79). His successor Khomeini (installed with US approval, initially supported). The house of Saud.

Just out of curiousity, who, in the last 50 years, has the US brought freedom to? I've given you a half dozen examples for 'my side', so a short list of similar length will help focus the discussion. (Leave aside the current muddles of Afghanistan and Iraq as too early to tell.)
 
Last edited:
Okay, let me play peackeeper for five uncharacteristic seconds.

First off, Moore's film. It's okay, but as Pure said it dropped the ball on a lot of information provided by very smart people. And it's advice stunk of traditional liberal wimbling rather than strong advice of those that know the region (of which Moore doesn't). It's not the masterpiece of a lifetime. It doesn't show us the real horror of war not in a way that's meaningful. Movies have done that, the first minutes of "Saving Private Ryan", the first minutes of "Jacob's Ladder", the entirety of "Full Metal Jacket", and many more. However, none of them can paint a picture similar to being there. Of the horror of having friends shot at, of fleeing your house as the bombs fall as you try and cluster your children around you, of watching your best friend die in your arms. These are things that happen in war and as LDW says, the emotions run far too hot for the soldiers themselves to worry about collatoral damage.

However, the creation from those who survive collatoral damage those that are only too willing to now wield a weapon against the invaders is one of the reasons that I am actually opposed to invasions and offensive wars. Defense I support full fledged and defense of allies I will support a sanctioned patriotic amount. preventive war can kiss my ass though. Sorry LDW, but I feel that if I as a civilian in a nice happy very peaceful community would play Rambo when faced with an invasion, the citizens of other countries have full right to do the same.

To sum up: Moore not God. Neither is Clarke. Nope, not even Clinton. Either one.

War brings terrible cost to pay from both sides because it's war. ("It is good that war is so terrible less we grow too fond of it." -Lee)

Defensive war good, preventive war bad.
 
Back
Top