moore O'Reilly right now

and Moore ate O'Reilly's cookies, and then took his milk

O"Reilly must be really upping his med's right about now...

you are correct

Oh and I did love it, "will you sacrifice your son's line to secure Fallujah?"

God I ask this question from many Righties and they are just as evasive as O'Reilly

Please people, Moore is off in his own little world. There's a reason the Kerry campaign is distancing itself from Moore. First of all the question itself is ludicrous because our military is a voluntary military. We do not send these kids to war against their will, they knew signing up for the military that there was a good chance for fighting in the middle east. We do not send kids to die. Moore does this all the time. He even admitted he would've preempted Hitler from coming to power and you do that by invading. So he's against the war in Iraq to remove Saddam, but he would've done the same thing with Hitler. Wow we have a smart one here folks.

Do you see no difference at all between Hitler and Saddam?

What's the point in asking - I'm sure your post will be gone in moments, anyway.

but that DOESN'T mean the administration in charge of them can just send them off willy-nilly to die for weapons of mass destruction that don't exist.

Good luck! :D

Being willing to invade Hitler's Germany means de facto support of any invasion anywhere? That's just silly mate.

Furthermore, as a veteran, I can tell you that my peers in the military were well prepared to engage in any action that was needed but we did NOT expect to be sent to kill and die for whatever the CIC deemed politically expedient. We vowed to protect and defend the United States, which invading Iraq is definately not.

Welcome to DU. Looking forward to more from you.

"We do not send kids to die."

Saddam is Hitler? Please, Millions, tell me what countries Saddam wrote about conquering and annexing. Tell me what minorities he openly wanted to gas. And why didn't he? Christ.

Moore makes it clear in his movie that although people who sign up for the military can expect to fight what they don't expect is that they will be fighting for wars against nations that are of no threat nor threatened to destroy us.

There's a big difference between being shipped off to fight for your country because a nation has attacked or threatened your nation, however being sent off so that Cheney can have an even fatter retirement check is quite a different matter.

For the record Hitler had vowed before attacking Poland that someday Germany would "get revenge" against America and Wall Street.

This is how they are being sent off against their will. They signed up to defend America not to fight fake wars.

I apreciate that question from Moore.

It is so easy to suport a war UNTIL it is your own blood on the line

By the way, most war boosters do not have the sense of conviction to acutally go JOIN, they'd rather have OTHERS go out there and die for what they think they believe in

Oh and by the way... that volunteer force does not sign up to do the bidding of the CIC but to defend the country. I am sure you cannot distinguish that but that is another matter.

Oh and by the way, you MISSED what Moore meant, just as O'Reilly did not let him elaborate, or did you miss his refernces about all the things that could have been done at the end of WW I that would have prevented the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler. I am sure you are not familiar with them, but there were plenty of things the allies COULD have and SHOULD have done at the end of WW I. For the record they learned, that is why they did not go down the same road in 1945...

Damn it people read what they want, and yes Mister Moore thank you for asking I believe in this war O'Reilly if he was willing to sacrifice his own son... we thank you, as we wish we could ask that from the blowhards who continue to make excuses

Some how I doubt it. The smear campaign against Michael Moore has been intense. And it has been totally groundless.

Michael Moore never claimed to be "fair and balanced". His movie is polemic. And what it says is accurate AND one sided. What you forget is that he is saying things that ARE NOT said in our so called "mainstream liberal media".

This is what the conservatives are REALLY afraid of. They are afraid of REAL liberals speaking out. They have had their way bashing their straw-man liberals for years. They have created the great lie that a media industry controlled by 5 coroporate conglomerates (and indirectly, their wealthy executives) have an innate bias towards liberalism.

It's easy to bash liberals when you associate the name so closely with the content of NBC, ABC/Disney and AOL/Time Warner. Their coverage is of current (and past) events is shallow and exploitive. When you have so called "liberals" on news programs bashing a "liberal agenda" how could anyone respect a liberal????

The recent advent of a REAL liberal media has the conservatives scareed witless. They have spent so much time coiffing their field full of strawmen. Now the REAL LIBERALS are getting a voice and we can tell the difference between the hollow straman liberal that is so easy to defeat and REAL LIBERALS who are people of high character and deep concern for the health and welfare of our nation.

Moore calls it as he seess it. And he has now singlehandedly smashed the great myth that there is "no audience" for liberal media. He has created an EXTREMELY popular film that has grossed over $100 million from production costs of $15 million.

As in "Bowling for Columbine" he is often criticized, but is NEVER SUED. The reason is simple. He is an excellent fact checker.

Moore has shattered the illusion of the "competent Bush". He has broken open the conspiratorial lie between the media outlets of portraying the president as a "strong leader" for the sake of "national security". He finally got out widely the simmering story of the Florida vote purge and the fact that Bush knew about the first attack BEFORE he entered that classroom. He destroyed the intentionally false image of Bush promptly excusing himself from the classroom when he learned of the first (actually it was the second) attack.

The American people have been systematically decieved by the Bush administration and the major media networks. Moore has put them on notice. He can show what they suppress. He can bypass them and crush their credibility now. Moore is a force to be reckoned with.

I sure hope that Al Gore gives Moore a muck-racker show on his new cable network. If CNN et-al were smart, they would do the same and keep their enemy closer ;-)

You one post flame baiter.

Me neither. But it does make them easier to spot.

ditch that carrot called the G.I. Bill and instead hand every graduating high school senior in this country a voucher for their post-secondary education or training of their choice--to be paid out of the DOD budget.

:shrug:

I know it's easier to think in black-and-white, simplistic terms -- especially since it's all you get from our feckless leader -- but things are not that simple.

Soldiers volunteer, willing to die to defend our country; that doesn't make it right to send them to die when it is NOT to defend our country.

Regarding Hitler, military invasion is NOT the only way to prevent people from rising to power, nor is it the only way to remove people from power. It's the worst way, and one look at what's happened in Iraq and what's happening right now tells you why. It can only be a last resort.

"We do not send kids to die?" In the Chimp's "own little world," we do. We most certainly do.

Yes it is wrong to allow malevolent forces to grow stronger without intervention. Hitler should have been contained. His attempts to re-arm should have been pre-empted.

Well guess what, this is EXACTLY what we did with Hussein. We kept up sanctions and enforced the no fly zone. We put that MOFO in a box and kept him there. The ONLY reason that Saddam did NOT fall from within is the desire from big oil to resist partitioning this fake oil republic into three natural nations consisting of Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiite Iraq.

Such a partition would make the extraction of oil resources more difficult. It would also lay the grounds for futher realignment of the Middle East into a HORIZONTAL pattern in terms of the Kurds in the North, the Sunnis in the Southwest and the Shiites in the SouthEast. Such a realignment destroy the vertical patterns of access to the persian gulf that allowed oil companies to extract oil resources DIRECTLY from individual petro-republics.

Free the Kurds, liberate Kurdistan from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey!!!!!!

Isn't the policy of Stop/Loss a form of the draft? I think Kerry refered to it as a "back door draft." Michael Moore is not in his own little world. Mike is a true patriot.

Don't worry about those who act otherwise.

Welcome to DU

:toast:

it was to remove Saddam's WMDs. When those weren't found, the reason for war was changed.

Moore would have prevented Hitler coming to power, if he could. It's debatable if invasion would have been the only option. Moore would probably have made a movie.

The US actually put Saddam in power, sold him WMDs, and turned a blind eye when he used them.

would be in order for you.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, and for 12 years before that, 2/3 of Iraq was covered by no-fly zones, meaning anything Saddam tried to fly in 2/3 of his country would be shot down.

His country was surrounded by tanks, troops, and missiles and he couldn't piss without having Tomahawks winging his way. His military had been ground to powder. He was fully contained.

On the positive side, he had no truck with Islamic fundamentalists who also hated him, as he was a secular dictator. He kept the factions in check through brutal means and kept fundamentalists and terrorists out of Iraq.

The situation sucked, but was stable and he was certainly no threat to us.

I trust that you can find google and do a comparison of Hitler in the 1930's and early 1940's for comparisons sake.

I do hope you stick around long enough to read material other than from the American Pravda. Factually based information is a prerequisite to coming to reasonable conclusions.

:hi:

CLASSIC!!!!!!!!

they sure looooove to use him for a rating's boost....

Of the big three networks they are the one's LEAST in the Bushevik's pocket. They may have shuffled the Reagan movie over to Showtime, but they had the balls to make it in the first place.

To me, Viacom is the network that is still in the mode of "It's just business". While I find this motivation less than laudable, there is a purity in it that I can respect.

CBS had the balls to air the Abu Ghraib scandal on 60 minutes. And they have also been first to give airtime to Bush critics Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.

So please people, lets stop bashing CBS. They're not an ally, but they aren't an enemy either.

wanted to puke at o'reilly passing the buck for this administration's lies to our intelligence, even that of foreign nations.


well, what about that iaea report the administration claimed existed as they "quoted," when no such thing ever existed?

what about claiming saddam's son-in-law said one thing, and later it was revealed he'd said the exact opposite regarding saddam's wmd? who's to blame, for these and other things which cannot simply be pushed off on others?


we know.... o'reilly and crew will keep distorting and projecting about "propaganda" in the meanwhile, to keep the population misinformed and believing the sky is whatever color tom ridge announced it was.