http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001120.html

this, however, is pretty funny......

*yawn*

I saw it... Pretty boring really. I expected more fireworks. They were both pretty civil though.

Saw part of Moore's interview on Nightline with Ted Koppel, far, far more interesting.

Had to laugh though because MM tried very hard to get Koppel to agree with him at times and Koppel would just look at him and either smile or change the subject.

It was interesting when Koppel talked about Kerry speaking French and how that wouldn't change Chiraq's opinion of the US and Moore laughed and said it would.

Liked how Koppel and Moore talked about how the French and Germans wouldn't enter the war.

One of the few things I agree with Moore on, is we are in a very bad mess. We went in with no plan, no help is coming, the Iraqis as much as W. wants us to believe want us there don't, you can't form a true free society with another country's rifle in your face.

Liked his analogy of how the 13 colonies would have reacted if the French had invaded us before the revolution and said, "we are here to free you." It is true revolution and democracy have to come from the people within and not from an invading country, it just becomes a puppet government in the eyes of the people invaded.

Moore isn't bad he just takes things to the extreme and gets carried away with himself.

This was the quintessential immovable object vs. irresistible force stalemate. Nothing was achieved or accomplished except the increased legitimization of Michael Moore.

Ah, not much there, but I didn't see the whole thing. MM was stuck on his "would you send you kid to iraq" defense.

I missed it. I had a reminder timer set for when the show was scheduled to come on and when that time came, the show was ending. That sucks.

I watched it, and couldn't help but feel that MM lost out on it. It was pretty obvious near the end that all he could ask was "Would you sacrifice your children?" Although there wasn't much to begin with, Moore lost some respect yesterday.

I saw it. Reading the transcript was more exciting. I agree with Art on this one.

Regardless of whether Bill O'Reilly would answer the question or not, I think Moore's point was well made: O'Reilly wouldn't sacrifice his child to secure Fallujah.

Michael Moore was also in the Boston area to give a speech at the Take Back America meeting in Cambridge, across the river from the Democratic National Convention.

Here is his speech in which rails against the corporate media:
Uninvited Guest: Michael Moore Takes Boston By Storm

Funny how it isn't O'Reilly's decision whether or not his child goes or not? O'Reilly made it very clear that he was willing to sacrifice himself to secure Fallujah; whether or not his son would choose the same is irrelevant.

I'm really getting tired of Moore's rhetoric here. The people sent off to war aren't children; they're adults who made their own decision to enlist. Noone makes the decision for them, and Moore has yet to acknowledge that.

I think that most people would consider 18 - 20 year olds as still a "kid," if not an actual child. It is the young men of a society that always bear the brunt of military action. To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, all wars are a children's crusade.

I guess part of it is that I'm 21, but when I hear "would you sacrifice your children" I get images of sending toddlers off to be shot. No matter how people view them, in the eyes of the law 18 year-olds are legal adults. They are considered to be of an age that can make decisions. Since no parent can legally force their child into military service, I have a lot of trouble with Moore's rhetoric.

I thought MM's strategy of "would you send your child to death" was really unconvincing in the context of how they were arguing. It seems to me that that argument only really works if O'Reilly was supporting a draft, which I don't think he is off the top of my head. Anybody who signed up for the military is or should be aware of the risks they agreed to in the first place. I'm no fan of Pres. Bush or the war, or even O'Reilly that much, but it seemed to me that MM got spanked last night.

Gotta make a decision then. If they're children and aren't responsible for their own decisions - such as joining the military - then they shouldn't be able to vote and effect policy either. Can't have it both ways. Either they're capable of making responsible decisions - voting and joinging the military for example - or they're not. It can't be one or the other, whichever is more convenient.

<---21 year old

I disagree. O'Reilly is a proponent of the war and MM is against it. I think we have an obligation to those in the military to only send them to war as a last resort. I would guess most of those who enlist would also share that fundamental expectation. Therefore, if war is truly a last resort, those who campaign for a war that would put other people kids in harms way should be willing to risk their own.

For O'Reilly to say he would go is disingenuous on the face of it -- why has he not signed up? The military wouldn't take him, as he is too old to enlist for the first time -- they might take veterans his age (maybe) but not a buck private. So his statement is empty.
meepa, I agree somewhat with what you said, except that it presumes that all people joining the army and fighting in the war are doing it because they want to -- some are doing it because they have no better option.

You guys are taking the "children's crusade" statement too literally. I specifically said that 18-20 year olds aren't children. That doesn't change the fact that they bear the burden of military action in almost any society. And, yes, they are still thought of as "kids" by most older folks even though they have legal control over their lives.

Arguing about the legal status of an 18 year old misses the point of what Moore was trying to say. Would a parent want to send their child (and it will always be their child regardless of the child's age) to Iraq? If O'Reilly is so convinced of the justness of this conflict, would he be willing to "let" his son go to war? It's real easy to armchair quarterback a stupid war when one is sacrificing nothing.

read the transcript and thought it sort of funny--it seemed like both of them were sticking to their scripts--o'reilly in his usual mode, moore rehearsing a scene from his film.

it was nothing like this:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...ign/glick.html

You have to consider that people like O'Reilly and the rest of the better offs send their children to Ivy League schools while most of the soldiers signed up out of desperation (having nothing lucrative to do).

As a parent there is no war that I would want to sacrifice my child. I myself may, but not my children, thats just the feeling of every parent I believe. no partent wants there kid to die no matter what the circumstances.

They still made the choice. It doesn't matter what income bracket they're in; they're legal adults who made a decision to fight for their country. Asking people if they would "sacrifice their children" is demeaning and disrespectful to those in uniform. It makes soldiers seem as if they were unwitting pawns in some kind of insidious low-income draft, when in reality every one of those soldiers made the decision to join on their own.

No parent would want to send their child into harms way, but O'Reilly wouldn't have much of a choice if his son decided to enlist. What Moore is trying to do is use images of dead soldiers to emphasize just how pointless he feel this war is, and to use the fear of casualties to get Bush out of office.

It all boils down to whether you feel this is a "just war" or not. Moore obviously feels the war is not justified, and will therefore consider any casualty to be a needless waste of human life. In contrast people like O'Reilly, who believe the war is justified, will look at casualties as heroic sacrifices.

I personally feel that the war is justified, and that we are doing good in Iraq. I think Bush was acting on intelligence that, at the time, he considered valid and important to act on. Few people can argue that removing Saddam was a bad thing to do, and that the people of Iraq are now better off under a less oppressive system of government. But these are my opinions and my perspective is skewed because of them. Your opinions may be different, and while I disagree with them I still respect them.

No, you're wrong! You don't respect me because....wait, all this message board civility has got me confused. Can't we just take turns negating each other's statements like on other sites? :)

Kidding aside, it's nice to have an Iraq war/ Michael Moore themed discussion that doesn't devolve into a vitriol fest. I guess we are learning how to get along here.

while i disagree with delayed reaction about the war, i agree with what he is saying about the question moore posed to o'reilly.

but it was--that series of questions--straight out of moore's film.

however, i think moore (and other people who think about this kind of thing) do have a strong argument about the class dimension of the volunteer military--that it is disproportionately working class kids from formerly viable manufacturing areas who join and that they are sold the military by recruiters as an economic option.

the same arguments persuaded relatives of mine to join--they went in hoping that they would not end up cannon fodder.
they understood going in that they were throwing the dice in a bid to get training (in helicopters as it turned out) that would put them in a position to get a post-military gig in the field they wanted to enter. the decision was made as much after looking at the backgrounds of people who worked in the areas that they wanted to go into as it was for any grand patriotic motive.

after basic, they were much more about the grand narrative. but then they were also reading stuff like soldier of fortune during their short home leave.

later, once the personality reconstruction of basic faded, the other motives came back to the fore again.

while the above is obviously particular, i dont think it unusual. and i do not think that it makes any sense to try to cram everyone who joins the military into the same motivational box. no doubt there are some who join out of a sense of patriotic duty. but that is far from an exclusive motive--if it was, the recruiting system would not be so devoted to making other kinds of arguments, no?
and if the military itself recognizes the complexity of motive that mght prompt a kid to join, why should we not in this thread?