Although it could've been longer, I certainly enjoyed it for the fact that this was the first "hardball" interview I've seen with Moore.

I find it the height of irony that Moore would only agree to appear in an unedited fashion when F911 uses one unfair edit after another.

It's called "can't take his own medicine".

He complained then, too. Moore has frequently criticized Clinton.

Back on topic, the "debate" was pretty lame on both sides. I've seen more intelligent bickering on internet message boards. I'll give O'Reilly the edge here as he is the better debater, and Moore's "argument" was based on emotion.

thats good to know...thanks. i guess i better google and find out.

Oooops - I forgot about this. Sounds like I didn't miss much.

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

My satellite was out during this so I was unable to watch. Is this a continuation of Moore's position from the movie? If so, the POINT of Moore's position is that yes those folks did sign up for the military because there are no other means of supporting themselves in towns like Flint, Michican. He argues that the government has ignored the floundering economies of the smaller townships that big factories have pulled out of for cheaper labor abroad so that the military is the only option to pay the bills for some. The "sacrifice" refers to the folks making the decisions in the war - they have no personal stake in any of the events or casualties because no one in their families were forced by economic strife or other reason to be in the military. You think O'Reilly would send his kids into that? Doubtful. I doubt that Moore would either. Which would freely admit that?

You are ignoring many of the other aspects of the argument.

1) Our military recruits heavily from lower socio-economic areas where there are fewer viable options.
2) Just because they signed up to be in the military doesn't mean they should be required to fight in an unjustified war.
3) Moore's point was more along the lines that it is easy to volunteer oneself but not to volunteer a child or someone else's child. Perhaps if a more diplomatic or UN guided path had been taken the war would have been avoided.

Too bad they don't let the soldiers COME HOME when they want to. Choices to get out ARE NOT ALLOWED. Remember, almost none of these soldiers HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE. You are sending the minorities, blacks and the poor to do the fighting (Moore's point) while the TRULEY ELITE (Bush and the rich) save money on tax cuts. If you are not willing (as an American) to support an important war by fighting yourself, send a family member, etc. then you are NOT FOR THE WAR. You are just hiring mercenaries. I would have fought in WWII gladly (a great cause) but Iraq is completely different and without WMDs they were a threat to us in no way shape or form.

Well, maybe two out of four.

Oh yeah... how much did that little "Mission Accomplished" stunt cost the taxpayers? I love paying for people's tickets to Disney World then watching them ride Space Mountain on video.

There are still options, they dont have to join the military

Quote:

2) Just because they signed up to be in the military doesn't mean they should be required to fight in an unjustified war.

Yes lets let every soldier chose when and where they want to fight. Why not offer police officers the choice of which laws they want to enforce. When you join you sign an eight year contract that you will follow your commander and chiefs order. If you are worried that your guy might not be the C&C dont join.

Quote:

3) Moore's point was more along the lines that it is easy to volunteer oneself but not to volunteer a child or someone else's child. Perhaps if a more diplomatic or UN guided path had been taken the war would have been avoided.

As I recall Bush did go and talk to the UN but thoes who were getting money from Sadam from the Oil For Food Scandal were stonewalling us (France, Germany, Russia). So its hard to deal with people when they are being paid off by the person your trying to go after.

I found that quite humorous as well.

didn't miss a thing. for all oreilly's rantings against moore he really softballed him and I think moore came out on top

Really? I don't see how. Moore didn't offer anything of substance. Best case for him, they both lost; but I think O'Reilly looked a little better. His question to Moore about branding Bush a liar instead of a person who trusted poor information was a legitimate question. You may agree with Moore's answer, but at least it was a valid question. Moore's return question about sending O'Reilly's kid to die was not only stupid, but tired. Also, Moore didn't look too good when he tried to imply that going into Afghanistan was a bad idea. It made him look like someone who would hate anything and everything Bush did regardless of merit.

O'Reilly's arrogant and opinionated, but by and large, he gives his guests a chance to make their point. He may tell them he thinks they're full of shit, but it's not the one-sided overbearing showcase people make it out to be. Affleck got a chance to make himself look good, and even Kweisi Mufasa from the NAAAA had a chance to make some good points. Up to the point where Moore showed up, and the level of discussion degenerated into playground whining, it was a pretty decent show IMO.

das

the "politicians send the blacks off to die" crap is just that, crap
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+by+race&hl=en
pdf version: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualt...aths-After.pdf
as you can clearly see, whites are a vast majority of the deaths

as was the case from 1980-1993
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/dod1a.html

well, compared to how oreilly hyped it he didn't live up to expectations

That is most certainly true.

das

I thought both of them lost and I was the winner (I was talking to the TV).

Seriously, what an incredibly lame show of ineptitude. Of course, the most eye roll-inducing line was, "Would you send your child to die?" At this point I think they were still pretending they were president and had to make the call, but even then, as president you have to have the presence of mind to consider the justification aside from emotion. Anyway, soldiers aren't ordered to die, they're ordered to fight -- dying is an unfortunate (and in the case of modern warfare, rare) downside.

However, Moore also claims the best line: "I want you to live, Bill." Thanks, Mike.

an unfortunate downside, huh?

Thank you for posting that. I am so sick of that stupid argument that poor blacks, still being opressed by the white man, are forced to join the military only to be killed in a false war. Bullshit.

Yes, but then again...it IS live!

Every once in a while they tape segments, but this is more the exception than the rule. I can't comment on the editing of these, but at least 80% is live. If you don't ever watch it, how can you comment on it being live anyway?

Quote:

I never indicated there weren't other options. Don't twist my statement. The reality is that the armed forces recruit heavily in minority and poor socio-economic areas. If you want to get all philosophical we can because nobody makes anybody do anything and we all have choice and blah blah blah.

ok and business recurit at college campuses because they know where they can get people. Do you think it is evil that the armed forces recruit in poor areas?

Quote:

Again you are twisting it and trying to say a war is a war is a war. Sorry but life isn't that simple. If you want to ignore the underlying factors that differentiate the wars, whether it be the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW1, WW2, or Vietnam, then you can do so but it lacks a depth of understanding and analysis, in my opinion.

If you dont want to fight then dont joing the armed forces. After you sign your contract you are obligated to server and take the order that you are given. That is just the way it is. What is your suggestion for this? Should soldiers be asked what Wars they want to fight in?

Quote:

Your argument about allowing police officers to enforce laws of their discretion is not a good comparison. If a police officer chooses to not enforce a law they feel is wrong they lose their job. If a soldier refuses to fight a war they feel is unjustified or against the agreement they can be court-martialed. While being a police officer is a dangerous occupation I don't think it is on the same level as a soldier going into combat where there is a much greater chance of death.

Again every soldier that signs up with our VOLUNTEER military knows that there is a chance they will have to go into combat and there is a chance that they will get killed. Once you sign your contract you are obigated to take orders. Again do you think soldiers should be given the choice of fighting or sitting this one out?

Quote:

The Bush administration created a false sense of urgency on the false premise of WMD. Answer this, why was Iraq such an imminent threat that further diplomatic pressure could not have been applied?

Bush and the rest of America just wintessed 3000 people killed in an attack. He had the CIA telling him that WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. Bush also had MI6 and Russian Intellegnce confirming that there were WMDs in Iraq. We all know that Iraq was hostil to us by shooting at out planes in the no fly zone and plotting the assasination of a former president. Having all of this combined information I feel that Bush made the right choice by going into Iraq. We tried to get with the UN but if the member nations of the Un (France, Russia and Germany) are in Sadams back pocket how can we expect them to put any sort of diplomatic pressure on him?

Understatement for humorous effect, but yes.