07-27-2004, 08:34 PM | #43 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
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.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
07-28-2004, 08:45 AM | #47 (permalink) |
BFG Builder
Location: University of Maryland
|
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.
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm. |
07-28-2004, 02:43 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
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: Quote:
Last edited by hammer4all; 07-28-2004 at 02:46 PM.. |
|
07-28-2004, 03:24 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
BFG Builder
Location: University of Maryland
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm. |
|
07-28-2004, 11:26 PM | #52 (permalink) | |
BFG Builder
Location: University of Maryland
|
Quote:
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm. |
|
07-28-2004, 11:55 PM | #53 (permalink) |
Insane
|
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.
|
07-29-2004, 12:54 AM | #54 (permalink) | |
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
<---21 year old
__________________
Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling |
|
07-29-2004, 01:11 AM | #55 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
|
|
07-29-2004, 05:13 AM | #56 (permalink) |
Muffled
Location: Camazotz
|
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.
__________________
it's quiet in here |
07-29-2004, 05:36 AM | #57 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
07-29-2004, 05:57 AM | #58 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
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
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-29-2004, 07:21 AM | #59 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
|
|
07-29-2004, 07:34 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
|
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.
__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time It's hard to remember to live before you die It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time |
07-29-2004, 08:03 AM | #61 (permalink) | ||
BFG Builder
Location: University of Maryland
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm. |
||
07-29-2004, 08:21 AM | #62 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
07-29-2004, 08:21 AM | #63 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
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?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-29-2004 at 08:24 AM.. |
Tags |
factor, michael, moore, oreilly, tonight |
|
|