Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Do you even know what carpet bombing, is?
No More Moore!
- Thread starter Paladin Solo
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Do you even know what carpet bombing, is?
Ya ya...Shock and Awe used guided missles..blah blah. End of the day, well over 3,000 of those missles (who knows how many) minus well have been dropped like they were in Dresden. The operation was excused on the flawed premise that Saddam posed an immediate threat and he could deliver biochem attacks within 45 mins (when in reality, the administration wanted to use as small force strength as possible to mask deployment so as to not get people pissed). Bottom line, if this would have been a humanitarian effort, the whole face of this operation would have changed. Shock and Awe would certainly NOT have been acceptable. Like it or not, Bush and Co. chanting "but Saddam was EEEEEVIL" is little more than a cop out.
Anyways, Im not about to get lost in the woods because of the single tree.
Any other FOXNews talking points to call mudrakers treasonous, Bradylama?
Anyways, Im not about to get lost in the woods because of the single tree.
Any other FOXNews talking points to call mudrakers treasonous, Bradylama?
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Carpet bombing is the implementation of a Strategic Bombing campaign, where strategic bombers lay down a "carpet" of conventional bombs. The idea, being to tear up a nation's infrastructure.
The bombing of Dresden, was a firebombing. That's why it was called the Firebombing of Dresden.
If the Shock and Awe campaign was really as bad as you think it was, entire neighborhoods would have been destroyed, and Baghdad would have burned to the ground.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Great. How doesn't that mean that you think thousands of civilians died during the bombing campaign?
Im not going to get into this cute little debate with you. The type of massive bombing we used, despite using this so called "smart bomb" technology with an estimated 20% chance of stupidity, would not have been utilized in a war where one of the primary goals is truly humanitarian. Its that simple (Rummy woud have been red in the face though; a real UN coalition wouldnt have let him go in with merely 100k men missles blazing). The administration made the case on WMD and links to alQaeda. Looking back and seeing that both reasons have turned out to be bogus, the administration is grasping at straws.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sorry you have a habit of backing yourself into corners.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You're the one who brought up the Shock and Awe campaign. Is it so wrong to feel compelled to oppose your opinion?
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You know, its easy to criticize me for carrying on a pointless debate when you keep replying to me.
I'm not the one taking this personally.
I'm not the one taking this personally.
Personally, I like Moore's movies.
Even though he portrays stuff a little blown up, the general message, although many proud patriotic americans will have problems admitting this, is often correct.
Also, he does not present any incorrect information as factual: he just portays what he shows in a matter that inspires the viewer to flow with it emotionally. I personally would expect anyone who would call themselves a worthwhile critic of political movies to be able to resist the emotional stream and look at what is actually being said.
Yes, he is biased. He shows thing from his own perspective. He does not, however, show things that are untrue. This cannot however be said about some of those wo are the 'targets' of his movies; Bush for example has send his country to war on false premises that he was, at the time, very well aware of, lying to both his people and his government to get his way.
Just my thoughts on it
Even though he portrays stuff a little blown up, the general message, although many proud patriotic americans will have problems admitting this, is often correct.
Also, he does not present any incorrect information as factual: he just portays what he shows in a matter that inspires the viewer to flow with it emotionally. I personally would expect anyone who would call themselves a worthwhile critic of political movies to be able to resist the emotional stream and look at what is actually being said.
Yes, he is biased. He shows thing from his own perspective. He does not, however, show things that are untrue. This cannot however be said about some of those wo are the 'targets' of his movies; Bush for example has send his country to war on false premises that he was, at the time, very well aware of, lying to both his people and his government to get his way.
Just my thoughts on it
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
it amazes me that 10 pages of posts actually came from this subject, moore is an ass to some, like bush is an ass to others.
its just a simple fact of opinions and like i saw in a sig. "opinions are like assholes everybodys gottem". i personally grow tired of hearing one way or the other, i mean cmon people get a fucking life, that goes for bush bashers and moore/kerry bashers alike. its fine to have your own veiws but you dont have to post them at every damned chance you get. i understand talking about politics can arouse emotion about what you believe, but almost 10 pages of repetitive shit throwing is really mature
lets get on with our lives people.
its just a simple fact of opinions and like i saw in a sig. "opinions are like assholes everybodys gottem". i personally grow tired of hearing one way or the other, i mean cmon people get a fucking life, that goes for bush bashers and moore/kerry bashers alike. its fine to have your own veiws but you dont have to post them at every damned chance you get. i understand talking about politics can arouse emotion about what you believe, but almost 10 pages of repetitive shit throwing is really mature
lets get on with our lives people.
...
you mean like this:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Basically, Moore's Bolwing For Columbine movie was crap. It wasn't "fitted for the emotional flow", instead, it was cut in such a way that the picture shown was completely distorted.
You know what, fuck it, I'm not going to post that link anymore. If people don't want to know thruths, fine.
Yet you come into this thread telling people to get a life because you personally have a problem with large threads. You're not an admin, nor a mod and you have no right to tell anyone whether they should post in a thread or not. Leave people alone, they're not bothering you, are they?
Sander said:
I went to that link. The guy makes some good points but a good 4-6 of his criticisms are blatantly overblown or nitpicks. The only ones that really stuck with me were the unfairness of Moore's treatment of Heston. The guy makes a strong case there.
Also, criticisms of Bowling aside, I would just say that I found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a much stronger film and that attempts to debunk it have been based on either misinterpreting the film or misrepresenting the facts the film uses. Here are some links debunking criticisms of F9/11:
http://delaware-dem.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/6/1942/00222
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/6/125810/5754
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/7/35821/91470
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/7/175530/4378
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/8/18424/43142
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/9/1339/05561
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/10/153142/328
Bill Clinton said:
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
There can never be too much nitpicking when it comes to criticizing a documentary.
Shevek, I'm going to explain the difference between "carpet bombing" and "precision strikes" to you, since you sould probably know what you're accusing people of before you do so.
"Carpet bombing" is when bombs are used indiscriminately to completely wipe out a city or territory. The goal is to completely annihilate the enemy; if you target a city and even some cockroaches or rats survive, the carpet bombing wasn't as complete as it should have been. If you want to learn about the horror that was Dresden, here's a good site:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.htm
You will find it quite unlike anything that has ever transpired in Baghdad.
"Precision strikes". on the other hand, are a new phenomenon. The key is to use guided weapons to take out individual buildings important to the enemy. While the weapons may not always hit the mark, its alot more of a "humanitarian" way to destroy the enemy supports than carpet bombing.
Speaking of errant weapons, you gave the figure that the Pentagon estimates about 3,000 pounds of bombs were off target. If you take into account that the U.S. mostly drops 500 pound bombs, that means only *six* weapons were errant.
The above information is fact, not an argument over semantics or a "cute little debate".
"Carpet bombing" is when bombs are used indiscriminately to completely wipe out a city or territory. The goal is to completely annihilate the enemy; if you target a city and even some cockroaches or rats survive, the carpet bombing wasn't as complete as it should have been. If you want to learn about the horror that was Dresden, here's a good site:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.htm
You will find it quite unlike anything that has ever transpired in Baghdad.
"Precision strikes". on the other hand, are a new phenomenon. The key is to use guided weapons to take out individual buildings important to the enemy. While the weapons may not always hit the mark, its alot more of a "humanitarian" way to destroy the enemy supports than carpet bombing.
Speaking of errant weapons, you gave the figure that the Pentagon estimates about 3,000 pounds of bombs were off target. If you take into account that the U.S. mostly drops 500 pound bombs, that means only *six* weapons were errant.
The above information is fact, not an argument over semantics or a "cute little debate".
I do not need it explained to me. I am well aware of all the neet little euphamisms our military likes to use. I was trying to underscore the fact that no matter what you call it, more than likely over 3000 missles (not pounds, MISSLES) were well off target. Please, semantic arguements are very very pointless - so why dance around the issues?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/military/2003/7/smart_weapons/print.phtml
Retlaw83, Im going to explain something to you. The Shock and Awe tactic is part of the doctrine of "Rapid Dominance." As I stated, several legislators, on both sides of the isle, have stated that had this campaign been held for chiefly humanitarian purposes, the entire face of the operation would have changed. Bombing the place to hell would not have been appropo.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/military/2003/7/smart_weapons/print.phtml
Retlaw83, Im going to explain something to you. The Shock and Awe tactic is part of the doctrine of "Rapid Dominance." As I stated, several legislators, on both sides of the isle, have stated that had this campaign been held for chiefly humanitarian purposes, the entire face of the operation would have changed. Bombing the place to hell would not have been appropo.