FrenchBoy

Thats got to be the first example of someone conceding a point due to logic i have seen on this board.

unclebuck

Very true, very true....

khany

I agree with some of your points Geezer, on the point of collateral casualties I dont. It seems all killing of civilians by America Soldiers is classed under 'collateral damage'.

The world is not a safer place.

Iraq has more terrorists now then it ever did.

There is more hate towards the USA and now sadly the UK then ever before.

Democracy cannot be forced upon a nation.

skiddus_markus

My point was it was disgustijng that no senator would sign it.The senators should have been ashamed sitting there and doing nothing.

Geezer

No, don't misunderstand me, I do not think that all American soldiers are whiter than white, or that civilians have not been killed needlessly. However, most of the casualties are collateral damage, although tragic.

The deaths of all of the people in 9/11 was pre-meditated murder.

I do agree that the US and UK (to a lesser degree) are not as popular as they once may have been because of this.

Geezer

gsm1

Now you've changed the whole point. You made no mention of Moore's editing and nor did I. Your original point was Moore showed the troops in a gung-ho light and then in the same paragraph agreed that's how troops would be.

mattstant

Almost died laughing reading that site there are theories about planes shadowing other planes to avoid radar, ficticious flights, exocet misssiles strapped to the bottom of the airliners (no really too make sure obviously ) and of coure its all a zionist conspiracy.

At least we can see all the the idiots gathered on one web site

MJW

Well I watched the film last night and had quite a few mixed emotions. Most of the main information I had already read elsewhere, but the personal accounts of the war and its effects were new to me. When I saw the Iraqis piling the corpses of dead children onto the back of a truck I was choking back tears. If it had been my children on the back of the truck there is no doubt I would take up an AK47 against their killers, so I can see why the so-called 'insurgents' do what they do, and who can blame them ?

Sure the film's objectivity can be questioned, but it's only showing the flip side of the coin that is pushed out to US citizens via the Whitehouse & Fox network. I did feel that film glossed over certain points such as Britain's involvement and the brutality of the Saddam regime, but anyone who knows how to google can find this out anyway. They will also find out that the Saddam regime, up until 1991 was supported by the US and UK.

The film briefly mentioned the rigged election of 2000 (if anyone is interested in reading more about this there's a good account on Greg Palast's website) and some people on this thread have wondered how Bush managed to be re-elected. Moore covered the main reason for this in the film : fear. Scare the public into thinking they're in danger and they will become most complicit, and hand over their civil liberties more or less voluntarily.

It only goes to show that the so-called civlised western world is anything but, and our leaders are just as barbaric as the 'terrorists' they are claiming to protect us from.

MJW

'Collateral damage' is a military euphemism meaning civilian deaths. I fail to see the difference between flying a plane into heavily populated urban area and dropping a phosphorous bomb on a heavily populated urban area.

gsm1

Exactly, if you're dropping bombs on such areas you know civilians are going to die - how is that not pre-meditated murder?

Collateral damage - nice way to dehumanise.

AsifScoob

Very strong views, but I am tending to agree.

Worst thing for me is not that "We have a foreign policy of doing what we like to further our own ends", I can almost accept that - compared to "We have an enlightened foreign policy and are the most highly moralistic people in the World" Which is an outrageous lie, thats what gets me the most, plus most people seemingly believing it!

Very sad indeed.

Asif

FrenchBoy

I loved the quote from one of the white house staff when justifying the bombing said words to the effect of...

"It's done with precision and it's done with humanity" !!!!!!!!

I found that statement pretty breathtaking.

AsifScoob

Geezer,

Why is the killing of innocent civilians wrong in one case but ok in another (using the Iraq example specifically even more so)?

That is what Bush would have us all believe - this is wrong.

Asif

Flatcapdriver

It may sound dehumanising but civilian deaths are an unfortunate by-product of war whether it be a bomb, missile or tank that causes their deaths. If your initial aim is to remove or kill the enemy and for whatever reason civilians are killed I don't see how that can be murder otherwise you'd have to categorise all deaths in war caused by the military as murder. Put it this way, if a soldier kills an enemy soldier in war and its pre-meditated - does that make it murder?

The good thing about Michael Moore is that he does offer an alternative point of view and he does stimulate debate which makes an excellent foil to the Bush administration. Many of his views are half baked and naturally there is a fair amount of bias in his presentation but then the same accusation can be levelled at the far right.

mart360

from what i saw it was clever,, and thought provoking...

but i had to laugh at the baby milk factory and portrayal of the land of milk and honey schmultz!!!

my mrs was giving it large about the civilian casualtys...

she couldnt see the bigger picture!!!





oh and florida sucks!!!!

M

MJW

It is generally accepted that by agreeing to join the military you will be putting yourself at risk of injury and death. Therefore if a solider kills another soldier it is seldom classified as murder.
However the references to 'collateral damage' and 'unfortunate by-products' when referring to people who want no part in war and have not agreed to be put at risk of injury and death are unacceptable.

Geezer

GSM1,
I haven't changed my point. I said "By the time it had got to the invasion of Iraq, it was clearly just a showboat for Moores views. The way he portrayed the US troops as gung ho morons (whilst probably true to certain degree!) was a bit rich, trrops are always going to be like that going into combat initially." This infers the point I later illustrated. If it is not clear then apologies, but I have not changed my point in any form whatsoever.

GSM1 & AfiScoob,
The difference is that the world trade centres were not full of enemy combatants, so the terrorists were not trying to take out anythng but innocent civilians. When the US and UK drop bombs, they are trying to take out military/terrorist targets, with precision weapons, but things don't always go as planned in war. The enemy choose to hide in populated areas, knowing that the opposition cannot attack them without incurring civilian casualties. It's a cheap trick.

Geezer

InvisibleMan

im suprised noone has got their lighters out & burned the planes down

only with 2 mind cos 3 would not be allowed...

Brendan Hughes

You're missing the point. Within a war you will always have civilian deaths. They're a part of war, regrettable. Laws of war state that these must be minimised, and (I forget the exact wording of the Geneva convention) only if a significant military advantage can be gained. There's the idea of proportion - kill 10 000 people in a massive bombing to end the war (annihilate all enemy central command and control emplacements) is OK; but kill the same amount to take out one anti-tank emplacement is not acceptable and it's thus a war crime.

What you're missing is that the entire war, the entire invasion from start to finish was illegal. I'm sorry, but pick any famous aggressor who fabricated reasons to invade and take over another country - I only know Hitler and Saddam (Kuwait) - and the US-led coalition was equal to them. There is NO LAW which says you can invade another country to remove a dictator. Otherwise, count how many genuine democracies are in this world - 30? 40? - then think of all the other countries legally open to invasion!!! You might possibly be able to invade in order to capture someone guilty of genocide, which they mumbled about, but Saddam's last known act of genocide (gassing Kurds) was in 1991-2, so we're, erm, a bit late for that. The legal premise they went in on, the only one they had, was self-defence - that Saddam was planning to attack them - which has been conclusively proven to be utter bullsh!t.

If history wasn't written by the victors, the coalition's troops of today would be considered equal to the Wermacht grunts of 1939. NOT SS or Gestapo or jew-gassers, but just the average Wermacht grunt stomping into France or Russia. They think they're doing the right thing, because that's what the political leader and their military superiors told them - they're under threat and have to defend by invading. They're just following orders.

Flatcapdriver

You're reading things into my post that aren't there. I said civilian deaths are an unfortunate by-product of war, I didn't refer to civilians as unfortunate by-products which is a subtle but very distinctive difference. Innocents are always involved in wars and their deaths are unfortunate/tragic/insert whatever word you feel appropriate but unless their deaths are pre-meditated then it is an accident, not murder. No-one is blameless in these situations but the terrorists who use the civilian population as cover are as much to blame as anyone.

gsm1

Precision weapons that also happen to just accidentally blow up water treatment plants (GWI). Yes, I know all about American precision - shock and awe. The precision bombing is pretty much a myth. The vast majority of bombs used by the US/UK have no guidance at all. If you've followed any of the real fighting you'd know that the Iraqis had most of their tanks/military vehicles destroyed out in the open in a very poorly directed operation by Iraqi officers. Anyhow, what do you expect of an army that has bugger all arms and no airpower at all to do, come out in a field with signs saying 'Please bomb here!'

No doubt that those that flew the planes into the WTC knew civilians would be killed but do you really believe they targetted those buildings because they could maximise civilian deaths? That's what Blair and Bush would like you to believe.

Geezer

Mmmm, well if they didn't want to maximise civilian deaths, why didn't they pick a target with no people in it, or fly into them at night?

Regardless of the accuracy or not of precision weapons, the overall percentage of use comared to 'dumb' weapons, or lack of intelligence in defining target such a s milk factories or whatever, they are mistakes, not the pre-meditated slaughter of civilians.

Can you really not see this or are you taking the ****? I hope it's the latter.

Geezer

Jap2Scrap

Getting back to the thread title. I thought the film was excellent at what it aimed to achieve. If Moore was presenting a case for impeachment he'd have taken it to court, not to a cinema audience. Instead he was offering a mixture of facts and points of view which would hopefully enlighten people to the fact that everything the US, and UK for that matter, administrations say isn't necessarily true. Anyone who enjoyed the film for those purposes would do well to read "A New Pearl Harbour" which explores the FBI and CIA actions surrounding 9/11 as well as delving a bit deeper into the effects of the war in Afghanistan on the building of the oil/gas pipeline mentioned in F9/11, sigificantly the fiscal rewards for the US economy and the Bush family and associates.

Moore just wanted people to talk about 9/11 and Iraq from more than one perspective and I think this board shows in microcosmic form that it's worked.

The fact that the independant investigation into 9/11 was neither independant nor much of an investigation just makes the whole thing stink more. How America re-elected Bush is a mystery but I believe we'll be saying the same thing about Blair after the GE. Unfortunate as it is the opposition parties of both countries have not used the fact that Bush/Blair obviously lied, or misrepresented the truth, as part of their campaigns. Not once did I hear John Kerry say Bush could not be trusted after the 9/11 debarcle. It's as if they're afraid of being labled as traitors or treasonous if they suggest the leaders of the time were complicit or inept over 9/11.

Ray

MJW

The word 'unnecessary' is probably the most appropriate in this situation. I don't think I read something into your post that wasn't there, as you've just re-iterated it ! It's just that you appear to be more comfortable with terminology such as 'unfortunate by-product' as it cushions what it really means, the death of innocents. If your son or daughter had been killed by a coalition cluster bomb, I'm pretty sure your choice of words would be more harsh.

Military targets. What constitutes a military target ? Well apart from the obvious : army bases, groups of tanks and troops, etc. there are many other 'legitimate' military targets. These include things such factories which may or may not have the capability to produce ordnance, TV and radio stations, roads and bridges. In military operations these types of targets must be eliminated. So by the same token (distressing though it may be for some to take on board) the 9/11 attacks were also legitimate military targets : the World Trade Centre was seen as a major financial institution : what better way to de-stabilise a capitalist country than by attacking the hub of of the economy ? The Pentagon and attempted attack on the White House are more obviously 'military targets' given purpose of each building.
The point of this is that you cannot explain away civilian deaths caused by the Coalition as collateral damage while at the same time condemning civilian deaths caused by terrorist attack. They are both exactly the same.

khany

Exactly

Geezer

OK, I am willing to accept that Al Qaeda see the WTC as a military target, although realistically, we both know that is highly likely that their aim was to provoke terror, not seriously dent the American 'war machine'. The wholly unexpected death of thousands of people does this. The people in Baghdad, although innocent, were in a war zone, you expect bad things to happen. The Iraqis knew the Americans were coming.

But that brings us to the fact that the terrorists hijacked planes full of civilians and flew them to their deaths. Before you start on about them not having the military oomph to do much else, they seem to have managed pretty well up to that point just using bombs.

And if their methods are acceptable, why not simply load a few 737s up at Baghdad airport with Iraqi civilians and fly them into Al Qaeda and Iraqi military positions? Hell, it would be a lot cheaper than all the ordinance that the US has expended!!!

Get real

Geezer

gsm1

Geezer, No, I'm not taking the ****. Causing civilian suffering/hardship has always been a factor in the strategy of war and the Americans know exactly what they're doing.


Well said, MJW.

gsm1

Because in both cases the opposition parties agreed with going to war and all the evidence provided at the time.

MJW

The people in Baghdad were not in a war zone originally : Baghdad was their home before it became a war zone. What should the population of Baghdad have done ? Just moved out while the US flattened it and then moved back to live on the rubble-littered streets with no electricity, gas or water ?

Hmmm I think if you compared body counts (not that the Coalition are keeping tally of 'enemy' civilian deaths, heaven forbid) I'm pretty sure I know who'd be out in front ..

Yes it would be a hell of a lot cheaper. But then how would you justify the immense sums of money dispensed to US weapons contractors if you're not going to use expensive weapons ?

Brendan Hughes

Guys. WTC wasn't a military target, it was a political one. It was to strike at the symbol of American trade supremacy. For shock value, for what terrorism is, it was a masterstroke. (Don't EVER think that means I agree with it in any way).