Michael Moore proving once again...

1…2123252627

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    edited January 2015
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
    "rgambs wrote:
    Hedo, I don't think B-Lux was refusing to buy this guys perspective, just that tired old line about "protecting freedom"

    I wonder what Mr. Lux meant if he himself explained it?

    1st, on the light side. I was very nearly named David which would have made me D. Lux. At the last minute, they changed their mind. Haha!

    Now, to answer your question, PJFanwillneverleavebrianluxalone1:

    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    In saying that, Couglan is basically say our troops are fighting for our freedom. This is simply not true. I haven't read Couglan's book so, no, I'm not arguing about his perspective. I'm arguing against the notion that post-WWII we have fought various wars as a way to protect our freedom. I am arguing that that post-WWII we have not once fought to protect our freedom. We may have fought for other reasons (justifiable or not), but our freedom has never been in jeopardy from the outside.
    Post edited by brianlux on
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited January 2015
    brianlux wrote: »
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
    "rgambs wrote:
    Hedo, I don't think B-Lux was refusing to buy this guys perspective, just that tired old line about "protecting freedom"

    I wonder what Mr. Lux meant if he himself explained it?

    to answer your question, PJFanwillneverleave:

    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    I know what the quote is. I was referring to your response to the quote. ("Does anybody here buy this? I don't. I don't think any of our troops (whom, as you know, I do support) have fought anywhere in the world in the last 50 years to fight for our freedom to say anything)".

    Could you elaborate on this a little further so as we don't get others elaborating on what you may or may not have said.
    Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Oy, PJFan...it's not like Brian speaks in riddles...well, not usually :D

    I guess there's a way of asking for clarification non-passive-aggressively.

    And thanks for (via that post) addressing my question, B. Perhaps the attempts at providing freedom of speech, of religion, of sexuality, of life itself, aren't just for US, for Americans. Maybe trying to help others to have the same. That was my point.
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661

    Brian, you do not feel we were fighting for our freedoms when we went into Afghanistan?
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,418
    I think the last paragraph from brian above explains it perfectly.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    mickeyrat wrote: »
    I think the last paragraph from brian above explains it perfectly.

    Yes, I read it. I was looking for his take. Revenge? Oil?
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    brianlux wrote: »
    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    In saying that, Couglan is basically say our troops are fighting for our freedom. This is simply not true. I haven't read Couglan's book so, no, I'm not arguing about his perspective. I'm arguing against the notion that post-WWII we have fought various wars as a way to protect our freedom. I am arguing that that post-WWII we have not once fought to protect our freedom. We may have fought for other reasons (justifiable or not), but our freedom has never been in jeopardy from the outside.

    This is the way I take it. That soldiers defend what they do by taking the propaganda talk of our gov't as a way to justify being on other lands and simply, defending their stance that what they do (kill) is justified and that "...we're fighting for you, man, we're fighting for you!"

    That mentality. Like we owe them something because they voluntarily join the military.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Last-12-Exit wrote: »
    Brian, you do not feel we were fighting for our freedoms when we went into Afghanistan?

    No. I don't think any of us can really answer why we we there. We were told we were there with the intention of wiping out the Taliban. It was more like fighting against something than it was to preserve or protect something- i.e. our freedom- which was never in jeopardy in the first place. I mean, really, Afghanistan was going to take away our freedoms?

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
    brianlux wrote: »
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
    "rgambs wrote:
    Hedo, I don't think B-Lux was refusing to buy this guys perspective, just that tired old line about "protecting freedom"

    I wonder what Mr. Lux meant if he himself explained it?

    to answer your question, PJFanwillneverleave:

    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    I know what the quote is. I was referring to your response to the quote. ("Does anybody here buy this? I don't. I don't think any of our troops (whom, as you know, I do support) have fought anywhere in the world in the last 50 years to fight for our freedom to say anything)".

    Could you elaborate on this a little further so as we don't get others elaborating on what you may or may not have said.

    Tell you what, why don't you answer my question first for a change. And would you please get that bright light out of my face, hahaha!

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    brianlux wrote: »
    Last-12-Exit wrote: »
    Brian, you do not feel we were fighting for our freedoms when we went into Afghanistan?

    No. I don't think any of us can really answer why we we there. We were told we were there with the intention of wiping out the Taliban. It was more like fighting against something than it was to preserve or protect something- i.e. our freedom- which was never in jeopardy in the first place. I mean, really, Afghanistan was going to take away our freedoms?

    Not Afghanistan, the Taliban through Al-Qaeda. They were trying to take out freedoms. Disagree?
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    Last-12-Exit wrote: »
    Brian, you do not feel we were fighting for our freedoms when we went into Afghanistan?

    I sure didn't.

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    backseatLover12 wrote: »
    brianlux wrote: »
    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    In saying that, Couglan is basically say our troops are fighting for our freedom. This is simply not true. I haven't read Couglan's book so, no, I'm not arguing about his perspective. I'm arguing against the notion that post-WWII we have fought various wars as a way to protect our freedom. I am arguing that that post-WWII we have not once fought to protect our freedom. We may have fought for other reasons (justifiable or not), but our freedom has never been in jeopardy from the outside.

    This is the way I take it. That soldiers defend what they do by taking the propaganda talk of our gov't as a way to justify being on other lands and simply, defending their stance that what they do (kill) is justified and that "...we're fighting for you, man, we're fighting for you!"

    That mentality. Like we owe them something because they voluntarily join the military.

    That's how I see it too, bsL.

    And worse, not all these young guys really know what they are getting into until it is too late and they come back with missing body parts and permanently screwed psyches.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    brianlux wrote: »
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
    brianlux wrote: »
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
    "rgambs wrote:
    Hedo, I don't think B-Lux was refusing to buy this guys perspective, just that tired old line about "protecting freedom"

    I wonder what Mr. Lux meant if he himself explained it?

    to answer your question, PJFanwillneverleave:

    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    I know what the quote is. I was referring to your response to the quote. ("Does anybody here buy this? I don't. I don't think any of our troops (whom, as you know, I do support) have fought anywhere in the world in the last 50 years to fight for our freedom to say anything)".

    Could you elaborate on this a little further so as we don't get others elaborating on what you may or may not have said.

    Tell you what, why don't you answer my question first for a change. And would you please get that bright light out of my face, hahaha!

    Well, I am not American so I am not as passionate about your freedoms. But my opinion of you guys is that your freedom to say anything is sacred and not to be questioned. If the tussle is better left in barren land to argue about that rather than on your homeland it is much easier on the "public".
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    TalonTed...our volunteer troops are fighting in Iraq right now. Not occupying Iraq or stealing their oil but actually helping the current Iraqi government protect civilians against Islamofacists. They are in harms way while you unintelligently smack away at your keyboard. Disagree with the policy if you like but show some damn respect for the kids who are over there. Also for those on the board who might be confused, some Canadians do in fact believe that her men and women in uniform are the tip of the spear in defense of our freedoms.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    backseatLover12 wrote: »
    brianlux wrote: »
    Here's the quote again:

    I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.


    In saying that, Couglan is basically say our troops are fighting for our freedom. This is simply not true. I haven't read Couglan's book so, no, I'm not arguing about his perspective. I'm arguing against the notion that post-WWII we have fought various wars as a way to protect our freedom. I am arguing that that post-WWII we have not once fought to protect our freedom. We may have fought for other reasons (justifiable or not), but our freedom has never been in jeopardy from the outside.

    This is the way I take it. That soldiers defend what they do by taking the propaganda talk of our gov't as a way to justify being on other lands and simply, defending their stance that what they do (kill) is justified and that "...we're fighting for you, man, we're fighting for you!"

    That mentality. Like we owe them something because they voluntarily join the military.
    I feel like I owe them my respect. It's fine if for whatever reason others don't.

  • badbrains
    badbrains Posts: 10,255
    What is it that Toronto Ted said that got you all riled up BS? Cuz I went back a few pages and CANT see anything. Am I missing something?
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »

    Well, I am not American so I am not as passionate about your freedoms. But my opinion of you guys is that your freedom to say anything is sacred and not to be questioned. If the tussle is better left in barren land to argue about that rather than on your homeland it is much easier on the "public".
    It's strange, because I support freedoms not just here, but where you live as well, and where my mother was born, where my father grew up, etc.

    Yes, I do hold precious my freedom in all forms, as I do those who may villify the choices in how I exercise it.

  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    edited January 2015
    Would have quoted BB but they never work on my phone. Here's what he said:

    "Dude, in the 90's a few Native Canadians took on the canadian forces, and won. The leader was named lasagna. Since then, our Prime minister (Harper) is like the little runt hiding behind the muscle(USA) jumping up and down behind him going, "yeah boy, we'll fuck you up". Canada would be defeated by Cuba in a fair fight."

    A) He refrences the Oka crisis in Quebec which was a land dispute between the town of Oka which wanted to build a golf course and the Mohawk tribe. Other then a blockade and the shooting of a police officer there was no "taking on of the Canadian forces". The golf course wasn't built but to call this the "taking on of the Canadian Forces" is just stupid.

    Wikipedia entry on Oka if you care

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

    B) "Harper acting like a little runt behind the muscle" - Harper recognizes that for too long America has shouldered the burden and is doing what he can with the resources we have available to help anyway we can. Our country did not participate in the invasion of Iraq but we recognize that the American withdrawal post-surge is leaving a serious vacuum. Our volunteer troops are there and in Afganistan for the most nobel of reasons. They are not occupiers, they are not plunderers and they are not Imperialists. They have a tradition of peacekeeping and right now are fighting for the most part to defend muslims from other muslims! This is a selfless act and as a thank you from ISIS our troops are being murdered in our nation's capitol.

    C) "Canada would be defeated by Cuba" - they would need an airforce and/or a navy to get here. Last I checked we had both. Give me a break.

    Like I said. Disagree with our policies if you like but show some damn respect.
    Post edited by BS44325 on
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    hedonist wrote: »
    PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »

    Well, I am not American so I am not as passionate about your freedoms. But my opinion of you guys is that your freedom to say anything is sacred and not to be questioned. If the tussle is better left in barren land to argue about that rather than on your homeland it is much easier on the "public".
    It's strange, because I support freedoms not just here, but where you live as well, and where my mother was born, where my father grew up, etc.

    Yes, I do hold precious my freedom in all forms, as I do those who may villify the choices in how I exercise it.

    Make sure you are prepared to say that to anyone.
  • badbrains
    badbrains Posts: 10,255
    I have a feeling Toronto Ted will be responding.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories