<p>ab<em>med = Michael Moore?!?!?
I really am tired of the people that base their knowledge on 90 minutes of complete trash. I saw the movie, and yeah I got one side of the story. And kudos for the Berkley kids...
ab</em>med, don't come to a Service Academy forum and try and talk your senseless idea of politics, most of us are dedicating our lives for OUR country(that's right, the one your standing on), withouth the "joys" of regular college life...
don't play with fire...</p>
<p>It's hard to label Fahrenheit 9/11 as "complete trash" when it won the Palme d'Or. It's technically magnificient, but little else unfortunately.</p>
<p>It had some strong points......ummm....but this was just ammo for people like confused and ab<em>med to use against knowledgable young lads like ourselves to try and win an argument...probably not gong to win this one ab</em>med, better luck next time! =)</p>
<p>whoa whoa whoa</p>
<p>you go to Berkeley...or are going to be there in the fall...and you didn't like F 9/11?</p>
<p>Please explain more! Is there hope yet for some of the students at that....place?</p>
<p>I have a strong feeling that our friend C23 is rallying his Berkeley buddies in the forum for help over here...we're seeing an increasing amount of them now...</p>
<p>First of all, YES, i support the soldiers and not the war. The soldiers are predominantly poor, underpriveleged youths who are nearly forced to enlist in the military because of their financial situation. </p>
<p>Furthermore, i will NOT join the military because i believe that all of the recent military invasions are unjust. Every military invasion under the Clinton administration was unjust as is the case for Bush's military invasions. I am NOT saying that the foreign conflicts that Democratic presidents interfere in are moral either and i am also not saying that Democratic presidents (i.e. Clinton) are any better than Republicans in sending their children to the military. However, keep in mind that if you combined all the military deaths suffered during the Clinton years, it wouldn't even come close to the number of deaths under the Bush admin. </p>
<p>Zaphod...Yes, it is no surprise that military contractors make BIG $$$$ during war, but is it a coincidence that so man of these contracts were given to Halliburton. Do you really not think that it has anything to do with Cheney?</p>
<p>TacticalNuke.....In fact many different contractors were literally begging to take some of the contracts that were given to Halliburton. There was an article in Time Magazine in June 2005 that claimed that contractors were offering to provide there services at "considerably lower costs" and their offers were rejeceted. Many comapnies are willing to do the work.</p>
<p>By the way i dont get my info from Michael Moore. Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Howard Zinnn, and other journalists and intellectuals are where i get my news from. </p>
<p>TacticalNuke, Cheney gave up his share of for political reasons. Think about it, they started a war and hired Halliburton to do all the work...do you think it would raise a few flags if Cheney still had their stock? However, you are very naive if you really believe that just because on paper it says that Cheney owns no Halliburton stock that he makes no money on HUGE profits of Halliburton from the Iraq war. You simply dont understand power and greed. In fact, the Pentagon has released papers, i will locate the website if you would like, that show that Halliburton overcharged the gov't by $328 million by claiming that they payed more for guns/uniforms/jets than they really did. And thats what the PENTAGON released, not some "liberal" newspaper.</p>
<p>Responding to DMeix:</p>
<p>I believe it's a very good film, but the film's technical merits are wrapped around mostly disinformation, leaving an impression of fascination hinging on mostly disbelief due to Moore's exaggerations. I thought of Moore's film as a big french fry - tasty and delicious, but also very, very salty. I think Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/11 so flambouyant that he ending up turning his "documentary" into a satrical portrayal of a naive and often misinformed America (at least circa 2004 anyways); Fahrenheit 9/11 is taken way too seriously for what it really is, a softcore porn film for liberals that is viewed by conservatives more along the lines of a Faces of Death video, too brutal and too ridiculous to be based in reality. </p>
<p>Anyway, as for my views on the topic of Moore's slugfest (Iraqgate as I like to call it)...not warranted and not needed. But that's not the troops' fault...the Bush administration was too ignorant and too pompous to listen to the advice of our intelligence agencies and military commanders concerning pre-invasion data, and it definitely shows - Iraq is in chaos and worsening, the nation's infrastructure is ruins and in worse condition than before the invasion, and the $400 billion and 2,400+ dead soldiers we have thrown away have so far yielded positive outresults that unfortunately are greatly outweighed by the negatives. We can argue the merits of taking out Saddam later, but I am ****ed off by the outrageous mishandling of this conflict by our president and his associates in the Executive Mansion. When people say they support the troops but don't support the war, they are hypocrites; this war has its merits, but its atrocious execution is unexcusable. Bush will probably leave office in shame if Iraq continues its downward spiral.</p>
<p>Now, you asked "Is there hope yet for some of the students at that....place?" Well, Berkeley is SLOWLY become more conservative; since the rise of neoconservatism/conservatism after 2000, the Young Republicans at Berkeley have become more active, I think approaching 400-500 active members, becoming one of the more active campus organizations. Now, Berkeley is a damn far long way from ever approaching a less than liberal slant, but hopefully the campus will shift towards the center-left soon. Personally, I'm a syncretic centrist, in the middle mostly because of my combination of left and right positions (I'm pro-choice and very strong supporter of capital punishment, for example). This often leads me into some run-ins with my teachers in school (my high school is near La Jolla, a very liberal area in San Diego), particularly my very liberal AP Government teacher who is shocked that I think that murderers are worthless individuals who deserve death by firing squad.</p>
<p>Invasions???? You are mislead young Bear, stop waisting your time boiling our blood, and maybe one day when you get to be President, well you can do what ever your little heart desires...
I am honored that I have the privilege of attending USNA, and no C23 or ab_med is going to make me think any different about my country or the leader of the free world...</p>
<p>Also, i admit that i did not do my research on the info regarding the number of congressmen with children in the military. But lets go with your numbers...2 out of 535 members of Congress have children in the military. Why do you think that is? I agree that joining the military is a personal choice, but why is it that congressmen dont send their kids to the military in the numbers that poor Americans do? Why is it that so few people making over $400,000 send their kids to the military? </p>
<p>Just to let you know, i support the draft. If we are going to have an army, we should not have a mercenary army of the poor. Do you think we would have gone to Iraq if the wealthy had to send their kids to fight? I think not.</p>
<p>Zeronegligence...Yes, i said invasions...whats wrong with that? Thats what they are called my ignorant friend</p>
<p>It seems the more that I am exposed to both parties, the more independent I become. </p>
<p>Frankly, liberals sicken me, they do NOT have the best interests of the country at heart, as democratic politions would have you believe. They show time and time again that the U.S. takes backseat to their own agendas.
This being said, the only democrat that I admire is Diane Fienstien, but that may only be b/c shes contrasted so much by that windbag Boxer. I literally get sick to my stomach when i think the path the country would be headed if John Kerry were currently president. I still break out laughing ever time i see or remember his "reporting for duty" line.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Republicans seem to have the right idea, although i think that religion plays too big a part in our govenment. True that our country was founded upon the principles of Christianity, but still, the debates over seperation of chuch and state are rediculous. People should be able to practice what they want and this liberal policy of erradicating religion throughout the nation is perposterous.</p>
<p>I am joining the military simply for that phrase</p>
<p>"For king and country"</p>
<p>The United States remains the most free and prosperous nation upon this planet. This freedom comes at a cost, which i am most willing to pay for it. Too bad more of todays youth seems to be the "entitlement" generation. </p>
<p>Thanks again to all of you serve, have served, or will serve!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
First of all, YES, i support the soldiers and not the war. The soldiers are predominantly poor, underpriveleged youths who are nearly forced to enlist in the military because of their financial situation.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>So you're saying that military service is compulsory for underpriveledged youth in America? How about you let the impoverished of America stick up for themselves for once, eh? We have (amazingly) a 100% VOLUNTEER force. Nobody forces anyone into enlistment. There are plenty of options for people that don't include military service. However, the military provides great opportunities that those same "underpriveledged" youth could not get anywhere else.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
keep in mind that if you combined all the military deaths suffered during the Clinton years, it wouldn't even come close to the number of deaths under the Bush admin.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Of COURSE there are more deaths under the Bush presidency!!! Did you forget about 9/11????? We were ATTACKED! We went to WAR! War=death and destruction. Have you ALL forgotten we are in a war?</p>
<p>As far as Halliburton goes...</p>
<p>As I am not privy to the deals made behind closed doors with contractors such as Halliburton I will not pretend to know everything. However, like TN said earlier, Halliburton is a HUGE company, and so it would make sense that if they are the most capable to do the job, then they should recieve the contract. I don't really have any opinion about the no-bid contracts because I don't know enough about the issue. I won't waste your time making things up.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
By the way i dont get my info from Michael Moore. Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Howard Zinnn, and other journalists and intellectuals are where i get my news from.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>And yet you never get news from the SOURCE. That's the problem. You aren't THERE. You can't possibly get the full story because unless you have the ability to go there and do the journalists' job for them, you will only hear what they choose to tell you.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
However, you are very naive if you really believe that just because on paper it says that Cheney owns no Halliburton stock that he makes no money on HUGE profits of Halliburton from the Iraq war.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>So, you're saying that even though it says upon his death it will all go away, he still is making money off of it? Do you have any way to back that statement up? I agree with you, Halliburton surely has made a bundle off of the contracts they've gotten, and I'm sure Cheney has made tons too, but he is giving his away, so what's your point?</p>
<p>True, religious conservatives disgust me more than any other political group, and repel me from anythought of going Republican.</p>
<p>"2 out of 535 members of Congress have children in the military."</p>
<p>I thought it was obvious that we werent going to come up with every example. There's this guy named John McCain - know him? - he was a POW and has a long lineage of USNA midshipman in his family including his son who has stepped up to serve in uniform. The list goes on and on..</p>
<p>You support the draft so that we don't have a "mercenary army of the poor"? Is that worse than an army of unmotivated, unhappy, angry free citizens that were drafted to do a job that they did not sign up for? I would have hoped we learned something from Vietnam.</p>
<p>Are you so bold as to generalize the "wealthy" as persons who would sacrifice freedoms so that their own children wouldn't have to serve their country?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, i admit that i did not do my research on the info regarding the number of congressmen with children in the military. But lets go with your numbers...2 out of 535 members of Congress have children in the military. Why do you think that is? I agree that joining the military is a personal choice, but why is it that congressmen dont send their kids to the military in the numbers that poor Americans do? Why is it that so few people making over $400,000 send their kids to the military?</p>
<p>Just to let you know, i support the draft. If we are going to have an army, we should not have a mercenary army of the poor. Do you think we would have gone to Iraq if the wealthy had to send their kids to fight? I think not.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Wow. That statement is ridiculously arrogant.</p>
<p>First of all, I didn't know parents could "send" their kids anywhere these days. I thought it was a matter of personal choice. Poor families do not "send" their children into the military--they choose for themselves that the military is a path they can take to success. We could get into an argument over recruiters but I'll nip that one in the bud. I would probably agree with you, recruiters can be misleading (sometimes) and I imagine even more so to low-income students looking for a way out.</p>
<p>Again, that entire statement is ludicrous. You are proposing that the only reason we fight wars is because rich people do not have to deal with the consequences. The reason rich kids don't go into the military (which, for all I know is just a fact you pulled out of midair) is because they CHOOSE not to. Again, military service is NOT compulsory.</p>
<p>Here we go again...</p>
<p>AchMEd...I've posted this before in hopes of dispelling the myth regarding our military ....</p>
<p>Some highlights and the link at the end.....</p>
<p>Military Demographics Representative of America, Officials Say
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service</p>
<p>WASHINGTON, Nov. 23, 2005 </p>
<p>The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." That's the conclusion Defense Department officials reached following examination of enlisted recruiting statistics gathered over the past year. "There is an issue of how representative of America is the force," ....And representativeness can take a whole host of forms - race, education, social status, income, region and so on. "When you look at all of those, you find that the force is really quite representative of the country," ... "It mirrors the country in many of these. And where it doesn't mirror America, it exceeds America." ....</p>
<p>The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. Servicemembers have high school diplomas or the general equivalency diploma. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. ...The study is part of DoD's focus to bring the best recruits into the military. .....</p>
<p>On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military, Gilroy said. Other trends are that the number of recruits from wealthier families is increasing, and the number of recruits from suburban areas has increased. This also tracks that young men and women from the middle class are serving in the military. Young men and women from urban areas are not volunteering, Gilroy said. In fact, urban areas provide far fewer recruits as a percentage of the total population than small towns and rural areas. ..."</p>
<p>and concerning Michael Moore's fable, "Fahrenheit 9/11" perhaps you might want to read the following article. I've taken the liberty of copying some key points....</p>
<p>Wed, May. 31, 2006
Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film</p>
<p>DENISE LAVOIE
Associated Press</p>
<p>"BOSTON - A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."</p>
<p>Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, ..., 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."</p>
<p>He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. .... He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" ....makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered....</p>
<p>Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military. In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you forget about 9/11????? We were ATTACKED! We went to WAR! War=death and destruction. Have you ALL forgotten we are in a war?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not trying to argue anything with anybody. I'm just curious. </p>
<p>Yes, we were attacked, but what does that have to do with the war we are currently in?</p>
<p>Did Iraq attack us? Were they connected to the attack? I just don't get how being attacked has anything to do with the war in Iraq. </p>
<p>Enlighten me, please.</p>
<p>Wow, go away for 12 hours and all h*** breaks loose! I like it! :D</p>
<p>While I don't agree with everything Bush has/is doing, I truly believe he has this countries best interests at heart. And, He DEFINITELY supports a strong military - thank God.</p>
<p>ANYONE who thinks that in our OR our children's lifetime will see a world without war/global conflict really needs to study up on history and human nature. </p>
<p>With that said, I DEFINITELY want to keep the conflicts OVER THERE, not in my back yard. I also want the best/brightest individuals manning those defense systems. </p>
<p>Hmmmm, seems like I recall a couple sayings, "the best defense is a good offense".....
you damn well better believe it.</p>
<p>"Without a vision, the people will perish", well, the way I see this is, to have/maintain a vision you must have faith. To have faith you must believe in your goal/vision. Having a belief system (i.e. religion) is the foundation of faith. That's my take on it anyway. </p>
<p>Soap box has now been put away. Hey, everyone, have a GREAT day! :D</p>
<p>About the benefits/costs of a volunteer army...</p>
<p>A volunteer army is great for one particular reason: It generally insures that everyone "wants to be there." This tends to keep morale high, allows for the development of a stronger veteran force, and usually reduces the marginal costs of taking military action. </p>
<p>However, there is are significant social costs. For one, it leads to a free rider problem. It has been argued that nations which fill their ranks mostly with volunteers have an easier time engaging in military action (as the social cost is much lower.) Although I may be inclined to point out that governments are just as likely to find ways to incite the population anyway (i.e. the Alamo, the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, etc.) the free rider problem is philosophically troublesome. The Founders feared a standing army of volunteers because it could easily become a political tool in the hands of an ambitious usurper. Later leaders, including Eisenhower, feared the development of a military-industrial complex (which undoubtedly exists today.)</p>
<p>However, it can be argued (quite easily, in fact) that despite the negative aspects of a volunteer standing army, it is the unfortunate necessity of hegemonic power. The US, in order to maintain its interests abroad, requires the development and maintenance of the world's best military. The most effecient route, therefore, is the volunteer army (lower marginal costs.)</p>
<p>But to say that it doesn't have problems is a bit too optimistic. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are proposing that the only reason we fight wars is because rich people do not have to deal with the consequences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A quick note about this statement: Though I'm not necessarily privy to the information given to the elite in Washington, there are ostensibly a few reasons why the US fights in frequent conflicts. The most important reason is the low political cost for most leaders (the short-term "rally around the flag effect" is actually a political gain.) Low casuality counts for US forces in the past few decades (e.g. Post-Vietnam) has further reduced political costs of military actions. </p>
<p>But rich-soldier/poor-soldier? Nah. Looking back all the way to Athens during the Second Peloponnesian war tells us that democracies will even send their wealthy off to die, if they believe there's a gain to be had. The US is not different when it comes to securing its interests.</p>