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

When McCain got back from Nam he dumped the woman who was waiting for him faithfully and hooked up with money instead. This guy would fit perfectly in the White House.

^ That post killed me with laughter.

I do not approve of this war, nor the people who support it. I feel pity for most of the soldiers, as they really have no real idea what exactly they're fighting for. For most of them, what they think they're fighting for...is a lie.

He's too old,he got caught,and in another war we should'nt of been in.
plus does anyone remember Laos the small country that was not in the war that was bombed for smoething like 18 years 24/7 because it was on the way back to base.Pilots like him were told to just drop thier ordinance
on the way to home base.

I just don't want people to forget that the U.S. did not start the Vietnam war. Vietnam's internal politics aside (LOL), it was the French that started the war. For some unknown reason, beside the "threat" of communism, the U.S. took over.

It's a shame, really. The U.S. gets dumped on for the Vietnam war and the French skate. Unbelievable (not really).

In all fairness, though, the U.S. government at that time MUST have been complete idiots to help the French, not alone waste over 52,000 U.S. citizen's lives.

In response to the original subject of this thread I have to say,

"I'm far from a John McCain supporter, but to suggest that he was "intentionally" bombing innocent civilians is pretty F'd up."

Why?!?!?.........you might ask(or not... either way...).
Allow me to expand upon my shared notion:

Because I can't believe that "innocent civilians" would have had the capabilities to shoot him down. Which is what happened.....he was shot down....
So that would suggest to me that he was SOMEWHERE in the vicinity of enemy combatants. Which would make it very difficult to prove that he was intentionally bombing innocent civilians. As per my summation.


Ya catch my drift?


Commence.

I have only seen Fahrenheit 911 and Sicko. Both of those movies I have found very informative, close to the fact, and very entertaining. What I also discovered, was that the right wing machine told the people he was bad and not to watch his movies. Of my conservative friends, not one has ever even seen a Michael Moore movie, yet come with plenty of comments. What I found out was that the comments weren't their own. The comments they had were fed to them from the Republican party. The comments I got from my more progressive friends were based on their own experiences of having watched his films. My conclusion is that Michael Moore makes some damned good films that are educational, informative, provocative and extremely entertaining. One thing about him, he does his homework. I've yet to see anything absolutely refute any of his claims bar none...

McCain was a genocidal criminal soldier/pilot , who bombed and murdererd innocent poor humble citizens of Vietnam ,

lucky it is that his captors did not put a bullet in his head ....

a man who calls for bombing Iran amd hypocritically condemns Russia for stopping the Georgian genocide in ossetia , is no doubt a imperialist

I'd like to raise a couple of points:

1) A lot of people here are saying that McCain was "just following orders" - I seem to remember that wasn't a defence at Nuremberg, and nor was it a defence for any of Saddams people.

2) If you're going to promote yourself by using your military record, then discussion of that record must be expected.

I'd like to think that people could discuss the issue rather than the source - the fact is he raises an interesting question, regardless of what people think of him.

It may be a bit soundbite-like, but that's to be expected when TV means a lot of people these days have the attention span of a goldfish - in other words, to get a point across, sometimes writers/producers whatever, have to communicate their message to the audience they're aiming at, and in this case, I think the soundbite method works.

reply to post by budski

1) A lot of people here are saying that McCain was "just following orders" - I seem to remember that wasn't a defence at Nuremberg, and nor was it a defence for any of Saddams people.

Nuremberg was a circus much the same the trials of Saddam. Surely you remember the trials of Saddam and his "henchmen" .. a sham if I ever saw one.

2) If you're going to promote yourself by using your military record, then discussion of that record must be expected.

Certainly... but he was following orders. Tell me, would you want a man in charge of the entire US Armed Forces if he himself deserted/stood up to superiors?

how dare this guy or anyone else down play what happin to John McCain
I cant even imagine 1 month as a pow!!and of course "Moore" brings it up. and this guyz story sounds to me like hes more upset that not eveyone know"his story".I respect and admire his endurance but by the way he talks McCain is his enemy
The o'l swift boat story but by lefties this time.
By the way i consider myself a conservative, but with Biden as Obomas vp I'm definantly voting dem this go around, I feel biden should be president myself anyway take care then by by now

Micheal Moore needs to go to sleep.....forever and not ever be reincarnated, not even into a piece of monkey dung because thats valued by monkeys. Someone shut this tub of lard up and ship him to Iran for our next bombing campaign. He can be the bullseye..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
France's inept ability to control the situation has little to do with the US Invasion, which was ordered starting with military advisers and heating up from there by a "liberal" ..

The US government funded the French effort to suppress the liberation struggle in Vietnam for at least ten years before it committed it's own advisers. There was never a communist threat as much as there was a French Imperialist threat which resulted in the US first paying and then bleeding to do the same thing the French did. The fact the USSR sold arms to Vietnam is hardly relevant to any of this and it was most certainly not what motivated the resistance in both South and North Vietnam.

Your assuming the majority of people don't like war, or rather, see war as necessary?

The majority of people do not like war and see it as completely unnecessary hence the fact that people are never asked if they want a war or not. If you can't grasp this simple fact it's no surprise that you do not understand the larger picture of liberation struggles and how imperialist and tyrants have done their best to eradicate it.

Not everyone is a Liberal.

Most, like you, don't even know what it means and it's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether people would ever vote for aggressive wars. Whatever people may be in the political spectrum they don't want to die without very good reason hence the fact that you have to draft them or create conditions by which you can economically coerce them to sign up for a decent pay.

e Besides, people are ignorant, easy to control...

Ignorant people are not nearly as great a problem as misinformed people. When Americans figured out that SH didn't have WOMD and that he really wasn;'t responsible for 911 Bush started losing what little support he had at quite the alarming rate.

be glad you don't get to vote on wars because the people would approve and all the politician would have to say is "hey, you wanted it.."

In fact i would love if we could put all wars to vote to see just what would happen. If a majority somehow votes for wanting to invade other countries and risk death then we at least know that we have achieved much democracy and that we can shift our efforts to better informing people as what is happening in the world.

Wow, a Million? .. I see what I am dealing with...

Yes and you know exactly where that number comes from and why i can state it as fact.

Blame those who ordered the attacks, not the men who carried out the superior's commands.

www.commondreams.org... Soldiers can refuse illegal orders; if they choose not to use the tools we as citizens have provided them with they should assume the consequences of their actions when we discover their crimes.

Through rationality, no, just because you follow an order does not make you accountable for the actions.

When it's an illegal order ( such as the order to invade Iraq) you are committing the foremost war crime and if international law held for Americans soldiers as they do for Iraq's, Serbs and other less well armed nations all coalition troops who are stationed in Iraq are guilty of war crimes. It's just a fact and arguing about it largely proves that you believe the US to be above the International laws it signed.

Usually deserters are considered cowards (and rightfully so) .. the ones that join the army for the paycheck and education, but when it comes to doing your job you run away.

I am not talking about deserters and joining the army for a education and paycheck when there is so few other paying jobs and very little chance to become educated is hardly a terrible thing if you agree that you will defend your nation against foreign aggression while you are receiving these benefits. People who sign up for these reasons and then object to fighting illegal wars are not cowards as they have more to lose by being dishonorably discharged and losing their benefits than they have a chance of becoming a casualty in combat. Why would you want to risk your life to commit war crimes any ways? Doesn't that make you either very badly misinformed, a coward ( you could do the right thing and risk the ire of other misinformed people) or just plain stupid?

No, standing up to a superior is not "bravery" it's a treasonous act.

Not if he gives an illegal order that your participation in would lead to the commission of war crimes. As most men just shut up and risk their lives to commit these war crimes ( men are cowards in that way and I'm not sure if i would have the guts to stand on international law) it is in fact very brave to do the right thing and risk the condemnation that media propagandist will shower on you.

Not sure I understood this, you are saying he lacks virtue?

I am saying that he had a very bad time as POW and that disagreements with other people should not lead to the presumption that they have no strengths and virtues.

Since a young lad I watched the news and it was the same issues .. gays, military spending, social security, defense, religion all this BS ...

Not once in 22 years has a single major issue been presented much less resolved.. this is why we don't discuss the issues. I don't think they want to remind us they never solved the issues from the last 10 elections..

Concentrate on divisive issues that creates factions within factions and as much emotional upset as possible and odds are your going to convince many not to bother with voting and misdirect many of those who do. In fact i would say that they do not want to remind us that they in most cases did the exact opposite of what we asked or completely ignored the issue if they couldn't twist it to their own benefit; when people wanted less military spending they start to allow women in the army thus turning the debate into a civil rights one instead of a fiscal responsibility one.

As long as Americans can live in their Bubble they will be content..

Americans are not living in a bubble as they seem desperately unhappy, tired and scared to death of phantom terrorist and dictators with 'womd'. This is hardly the sign of people who live in fantasy bubble of their own creation.

let the politicians do what they must so long as it doesn't effect them .. I don't think they care much about what type of government they have, as most don't understand the one they got.

I think Americans care a great deal about what sort of government they have but that many have become disillusioned by understanding that the non- democracy ( bush stole both elections ; or should i say Kerry and Gore gave it to him by not contesting the massive fraud) they are currently living seems to yield progressive results in a very slow fashion. I am not even American and i seem to have more sympathy with the disagreements that results from the very deceptive practice of having a two party system where the only distinction between the two is just how fast they will attempt to destroy your civil rights.

Stellar

Originally posted by Alferd Packer
Micheal Moore needs to go to sleep.....forever and not ever be reincarnated, not even into a piece of monkey dung because thats valued by monkeys. Someone shut this tub of lard up and ship him to Iran for our next bombing campaign. He can be the bullseye..

Funny, all this vitriole being focused on Moore. I don't see anybody disputing what he says...just calling him names for saying it. Does he not have a portion of his website that directs one to documentary evidence supporting the facts he cites in his movies?

Frankly, I'd love to see Moore come aboard ATS for a spell and if not teach a little economics and political science, then maybe correct some manners.

It's war. War hero is kind of "meh" already.

All war is a crime for all killing is bad. Besides that, civilians are just assets in war. Sad, but it's true. Bullets don't differentiate between. Civilian and armed gunman.

Suck it, it's war. War sucks.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Johnny!!! Bravo!! (or Brava!!) as the case may be.

Some posters have, instead of mentioning many of MM's films, and the points that they raise, instead resort to insulting him because he's....ermmm....overweight.

As if, instead of debating any of the points he raises, it's better to insult, instead.

(I made this mistake...not once, not twice....well, many times. I was ashamed for doing so. An attempt to 'debunk' a person, based on any physical quality, is not a valid way to discuss an issue)

I think Michael Moore might be a bit off here because it wasn't dropping bombs that made McCain a "hero," but rather that he survived years of harsh imprisonment. That having been said, I frankly fail to see how any military experience makes someone a better president. For some vets, their military experience might make them much more reluctant to pull the trigger, while for others, their military experience might make them more likely to pull the trigger. It all depends on how their mind interpreted that experience. Look, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush's father all served in the military, but only one of them (Bush's father) had any actual combat experience. Did this make them better leaders? If it did I can't see how.

On the other hand, in John McCain's defense, he was doing what he was told to do. It wasn't like he was flying around looking for innocent civilians to drop bombs on. There were pre-planned strategic targets that he would've had no part in choosing. He executed a plan, which is what military pilots are supposed to do. The fact that there were likely innocent civilian casulties was not his fault.

And now back to the other hand. While McCain's military service was honorable, I'm glad someone is finally starting to question the value of that experience as it pertains to the presidency.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ClintK]

reply to post by ClintK


Clint....well said.

The fact that a 'soldier' (or a Navy Pilot) follows orders is not a reflection on THAT person's personal opinions.

'Following orders' has been over-used.....it assumes that EVERY pilot, sent on a bombing mission, in Vietnam was somehow complict with some 'vast' conspiracy....regarding the orders.

Yeah....the Nazis were horrible, but some of them 'may' have not known the extent of the damage they were causing. I wasn't there, I don't know these people. It's up to them to answer. But, of course, most are long dead by now.....

I for one have never been able to comprehend how being a follower will make you a good leader. The two are contradictory to their very purpose.

Originally posted by ClintK I frankly fail to see how any military experience makes someone a better president. For some vets, their military experience might make them much more reluctant to pull the trigger, while for others, their military experience might make them more likely to pull the trigger.

I would prefer to have a leader who can muster up some appreciation for what war actually means. Right now the US command structure is dominated by chicken hawks who boast of dodging military service because they had more important things to do (Cheney), did a duck and cover by disappearing into the Air National Guard (Bush), or a host of other diversions granted to 'fortunate sons'. And they are moving American sons and daughters around the world as dispassionately as they would chess pieces. Gimme a leader who knows the real cost of war.