*O'Reilly vs. Moore* right now!!!

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
They weren't sent to war? They all voluntarily got on planes and ships and went into Iraq on their volition? They weren't ordered into battle?


THINK!!

maybe you should take some of your own advice...you complain that I am arguing semantics and yet you do the same thing.

Sure they were sent to war, but none of them were forced to serve, none of them were drafted, they all chose a career in the military...they all could have backed out and been court marshalled if they decided to.

its called a clue conjur, you might want to try getting one.

yet their comitment to the military is to defend our country, not to go around invading others.

The way you're implying 'defend' in that statement is not the committment that soldiers make when they sign that piece of paper. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be a need for much of a standing army since I'm sure 90% of the able bodied population would join up as soon as the first invader stepped foot on our soil.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
yet their comitment to the military is to defend our country, not to go around invading others.

so says you....had this been WWII and Hitler would you have said the same thing?...I think not.

LMAO!!

Resorting to comparing Iraq to WWII? Wow.


The two wars are nowhere near to being close in comparison.

His point is valid. Snowman made a reference to defending the country not involving invading other countries. boazk simply pointed out the folly in that belief by using the best possible example. You know the old saying.....the best defense is a good offense.

the differnce is that we were in need of defense durning WWII. Hitler had the intent of concuring the world, and was proving to be rather capable in doing so. this was hardly the same situation as Iraq.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

The way you're implying 'defend' in that statement is not the committment that soldiers make when they sign that piece of paper. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be a need for much of a standing army since I'm sure 90% of the able bodied population would join up as soon as the first invader stepped foot on our soil.

yet we would be untrained and not nearly as cappable as a well trained invading force, so the standing army is a good plan. as foor the paper that they sign, i am trying to find a copy online but am comming up short; however, i am pretty sure the commitment is one of defense and would only have been valid in the Iraqi invasion if Iraq truely was the "unique and urgent threat" Bush claimed it was.

 

[Turkish]

John Kerry for America :beer:

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: conjur
Like it won't be edited to favor O'Reilly??

He's done it before.

its un-edited. BONG!

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
You're arguing semantics and you know it.

not at all...again no ones "Kids" were sent to war, there was no draft, everyone was of age to enlist and everyone enlisted of their own volition....if there is a big difference between my forcing my kid to serve and my kid signing up for the service on their own and choosing to serve..I myself would be reluctant to perform the former no matter what the cause however the latter I would have no problem with if that is what they decided to do.

Your argument is weak conjur, come back with something of substance instead of just kissing moore's ass.

:roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

His point is valid. Snowman made a reference to defending the country not involving invading other countries. boazk simply pointed out the folly in that belief by using the best possible example. You know the old saying.....the best defense is a good offense.

Actually I think it's a completely specious analogy. By the time we got involved in WWII, Hitler had already invaded Poland, Belgium, Holland, France, and Russia. We were defending our allies and foiling a proven bloodthirsty dictator bent on taking over all of Europe. OIF was an unprovoked, offensive attack on a sovereign nation that had never posed any direct threat to the US or its allies since Desert Storm, when GHWB went to war to stop him, but elected to leave him in power.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I could be wrong but I would say conjur got his ass owned by bozack.

You could be wrong, and indeed you are.

Your new sig is nearly as mystifying as the old one. Am I supposed to be insulted?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I could be wrong but I would say conjur got his ass owned by bozack.

No "could" about it. You are wrong.

Also, do you always parrot terms and phrases back at people?

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: conjur
They weren't sent to war? They all voluntarily got on planes and ships and went into Iraq on their volition? They weren't ordered into battle?


THINK!!

This is purely anecdotal, but anyone I personally know who is/was in Iraq had no problems going to Iraq. Anyone I've spoken to who has been their first hand has said that the people are nothing like the ungrateful people portrayed in the media that we see every day and they have no problem with there being no WMD's found since they've seen first hand what their intervention in the Saddam regime has given the Iraqi people.

Of course that's not a word for word dictation but I think you see my point. Yes, they were sent to war. But yes, at least the people I personally know, did so voluntarily without reservation. Well, other than whatever reservation one might have knowing that they are going to be part of the first wave and taking the brunt of the fire.

Exactly, I wish the likes of Michael Moore and Conjur would STOP SPEAKING FOR OUR MILITARY.. let them speak for themselves.

 

[Ferocious]

Moore seemed to almost feel sorry for Bill.

Bill had no chance.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: conjur
Like it won't be edited to favor O'Reilly??

He's done it before.

its un-edited. BONG!

And you know this how? Are you some editing room co-op for FOX?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Exactly, I wish the likes of Michael Moore and Conjur would STOP SPEAKING FOR OUR MILITARY.. let them speak for themselves.

Where have I ever spoken for our military?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: shinerburke

His point is valid. Snowman made a reference to defending the country not involving invading other countries. boazk simply pointed out the folly in that belief by using the best possible example. You know the old saying.....the best defense is a good offense.

Actually I think it's a completely specious analogy. By the time we got involved in WWII, Hitler had already invaded Poland, Belgium, Holland, France, and Russia. We were defending our allies and foiling a proven bloodthirsty dictator bent on taking over all of Europe. OIF was an unprovoked, offensive attack on a sovereign nation that had never posed any direct threat to the US or its allies since Desert Storm, when GHWB went to war to stop him, but elected to leave him in power.

OIF was on firm legal ground as Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and 15 other UN resolutions. GWB could not convince the UN to remove Saddam in Desert Storm. The removal should have happened then.

But I agree, by antiwar logic, we never should attacked germany as they did not attack us.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Exactly, I wish the likes of Michael Moore and Conjur would STOP SPEAKING FOR OUR MILITARY.. let them speak for themselves.

Of course, it's tricky, in that we military members are limited in any number of ways in terms of political speech.

As most people know, officers can't use contemptuous speech toward the President, VP, Congress, the governor of the state in which we are stationed, or several other officials. No military member can contribute to a particular candidate's campaign, or appear at a political rally or parade. In short, we are not always free to speak candidly about our leadership or their decisions.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison
OIF was on firm legal ground as Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and 15 other UN resolutions. GWB could not convince the UN to remove Saddam in Desert Storm. The removal should have happened then.

But I agree, by antiwar logic, we never should attacked germany as they did not attack us.

HA!

The justification for the breach of the ceasefire revolved around the WMDs and the "existence" thereof.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

You just cannot compare WW2 to the Iraq war. It's not even close to comparison.

WW2: Truly GLOBAL war, we are talking about enormous stakes here with Germany having the ability to conquer much of Europe and the world. Hitler spreading racism and killing innocent Jews/undesirables.

Iraq: Sadaam, brutal dictator. Not an imminent threat in any way shape or form, as has been proven. Horrible to his people, but has done nor shown any evidence of harming the US.

Once again, not even close. Nice try.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
Like it won't be edited to favor O'Reilly??

He's done it before.

Kind of like F9/11 was edited in Moore's favor?

Game.....Set.....Match.

Not really.

 

[AnImuS]

O'Reilly owns

 

[freegeeks]

OIF was on firm legal ground as Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and 15 other UN resolutions. GWB could not convince the UN to remove Saddam in Desert Storm. The removal should have happened then.

But I agree, by antiwar logic, we never should attacked germany as they did not attack us.

If I remember correctly Germany had a pact (tripartite agreement of 1940) with Japan making Germany a legit enemy of the USA when Japan attacked PH. Germany and Italy also declared war on the USA before the USA declared war on them. Me thinks you are enemies when someone declares war on you
the Germans were also sinking and attacking merchant ships (including American ships - the destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed by U-562 on 31 october 1941 - that is 5 weeks BEFORE P-H) with their U-boats way before Pearl Harbour.

if you take all these things in consideration, comparing WW2 with Iraq is just ridiculous.
-Iraq didn't attack the USA
-Iraq didn't declare war on the USA
-Iraq didn't pose a threat to the USA (no WMD)

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Gee I never knew Bill "I'd-sacrifice-myself-but-not-my-child" O'Reilly was a chickenhawk also.

yup chicken hawk all the way..



Oreilly is a chicken hawk!
Name: William "Bill" O'Reilly
Born: 1949
Employer: Rupert Murdoch
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Bill O?Reilly loves to come off as a straight-talking, blue-collar kind of guy. Funny, a lot of guys who fit that description and graduated high school the same year he did - 1967 - went straight to Vietnam. Not our Bill - he went to college. And he didn?t just go to college, he spent his junior year, 1969-1970, in London. He graduated in 1971, briefly exposing him to the draft again, but Bill was miraculously spared.

like limbaugh, hanitty, savage etc, all who spend their time righteously casting aspersions about the quality of john kerry's purple hearts and generally denigrating his volunteer service, all of course dodged service themselves

the president and the rest of his chicken hawk squad

 

[jkenn19]

Sorry if this is a little off the subject, but what I find hilarious is that someone like Michael Moore, who
obviously is a reasonably intelligent man, can freak out about Bush's actions, but completely ignore
some stupid things the other side does, and has done. I would have a lot more respect for the man
if he was exposing the absolute corruptness of almost every major politician.

When are we as Americans going to demand that our representatives stop pandering to special interests?
There was a news piece on NBC the other night showing parties set up by lobbyists and segments of
business, in Boston for the DNC. When the Republican party has their convention, the same thing will
happen. Everytime I hear how much trial lawyers are supporting Edwards, or labor unions are supporting
the Dems, or pharmaceutical (sp?) companies are supporting the Republicans, I want to puke.
These guys were elected to do what is best for their constituents, not whoever throws the most money at
them. Does anyone wonder why John Edwards would spend $6 million of his own money to get elected to
the senate? Most of that money came from insurance companies paying for the lawsuits that he filed for
his clients. Look into that sometime, it you want a good laugh.

Sorry if it sounds like I am bashing the Democrats, they are an easier target, considering all the rich
clowns acting like they know what is best for the common man. Don't let them fool you, they are
taking the same tax breaks the Republicans are, they are certainly not exposing the perks all elected
officials get, such as a pretty nice pension for serving one term. They are not willingly giving more of
their earnings. Take a look at this link: http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/21/news/bubbasbucks/

When Michael Moore donates half his proceeds to good charities, and exposes the crap that goes on in
Washington on both sides, then he'll earn my respect.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: jkenn19
..stuff...

So is F/11 the only film of Moore's you have seen? He critiscizes both sides, but Bush and the extreme right has been at the top lately as that is what will get the most attention.

 

[Czar]

that transcript could have taken place right here on the forum

and O'Reilly lost because he invoked the Godwin Law

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
Like it won't be edited to favor O'Reilly??

He's done it before.

Kind of like F9/11 was edited in Moore's favor?

moore doesnt really try to make himself out to be a hero.
o'reilly cant stop masturbating about what a fair and great man he is, lying about a shield of "humility" that he is serving the public.