Farenheit 9/11

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:49 pm

Ok, you don't, or won't, see the effect his statement has on the public discourse and perception of the war in Iraq so we'll do it your way and only address the literal assertion made by Moore.

Gooberman wrote:"African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole" and "Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole". I hate to burst any bubbles, but this was Moore's entire point.

If more blacks per capita join the army than whites so what?!
It's not a draft, it's voluntary!
More blacks than whites are in the NBA and NFL, is that an unfair burden too?

And as to the stress that goes with being in the army, it's not a secret and the stress is there for all members black and white so where is the unfair burden in that?

Is it tough to be in a war zone, I'm sure it is, but just what the heck did they think the army does when they signed up?!?
And again, the stress for combat troops is going to be worse than the stress on non-combat troops and the combat troops are disproportionately white not black, so where the hell is the unfair burden on the black man again?

The fact is, if you don't want to address the 'real' intent behind the timing and spin of the 'blacks are unfairly bearing the war burden' angle the topic becomes much to do about nothing....or...a Michael Moore film.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:15 pm

the combat troops are disproportionately white not black

Do you have another source? This may be true, but your article doesn't make this conclusive, it says,

"The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches."

It doesn't say smaller then what, is it smaller then their disproportionately large percentage as in the previous paragraphs of the article? They had just said that in the army its almost doubled! If so, it could still be greater, and smaller at the same time. It's not conclusive.

Further, keep in mind some common statistics tricks, intentional or not, that they are playing. We are talking about two samples, where one is a lot smaller. And then comparing their deaths. The death percentage seems a whole lot larger for whites, but keep things in perspective. If you are 12% of the population and your death statistic is up by just 0.8% (i mean this as an addition to the 12%), then this is the same relative increase as the larger sample whom has 75%, being increased by 5%! It is unfair to compare the two. Look at this another way, if you make up 12% and your death toll percent is increased by 12% (again, as addition), then it has doubled! Where as if its 75% and it goes up by 12% then it has only had about a 14% increase. So it isn't as dramatic as the article makes it seem. In fact thier population to death ratio is both 0.97X!

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:18 pm

here's my take on this whole thing:

I haven't seen the movie, just FYI and getting that off the plate right now.

I don't know how much Moore made up, whether it's 1% or 99%. But my main problem is that even if he made 1% up, it completely negates the rest of the movie, as conservatives, anti-mooreIANS, etc, simply just pass off the entire movie as lies, and any truthful statements / good ideas / good points [i'm going to assume that he does make some good points] are completely ignored. By even making up 1% of the movie, Moore lets the counter-argument to all of his ideas be "oh well he obviously made that up."

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:33 pm

Lothar, this one: "Full of holes, ripped out of context, and generally not worth my time to listen to"

It was wierd hearing that coming from another person..

There was a link I found last night I believe doign a comparisom between what moore had in BFC and the actual speech Charlton Heston used. dammed if i can find it.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:30 am

i saw the film. the point about the army demographic was not that blacks shouldered the burden, but that the poor did.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:28 am

Ferno, here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

The author of this comparison has actually co-authored a book entitled "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man", an analysis of the techniques he uses to convince his audience that the picture he paints is the truth. Looks like an interesting read.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:57 am

vertigo, I couldn't agree more.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:04 pm

I agree Palzon, and have said so twice...

While he does make an effort during the recruiting scene to target blacks, as Will's article also supports, it was still more of a poor/rich thing. I'm just not buying Will's argument that if you don't die in war, then its not a burdan.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:23 pm

Palzon wrote:i saw the film. the point about the army demographic was not that blacks shouldered the burden, but that the poor did.

Oh...well shiz...now someone tells me!

Damn you Gooberman why did you say 'blacks' were bearing the burden?

If you join the army expect hard dangerous work for low pay. That's not a burden, it's a job description for crying out loud!
Complain about it and you're a whining little biotch.

Maybe it should be described as a disproportionate number of stupid people are bearing the burden of the war because they joined the army and didn't expect to have to go to war

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:47 pm

Damn you Gooberman why did you say 'blacks' were bearing the burden?

I didn't say that. I said what I said, I meant what I said, not what you said

"blacks are sharing an unequal precentage load of the war burden"

This is addressed in your article. Where we disagree is war not being a burdan to those who don't die. I am willing to bet that most in the reserve couldn't disagree with you more, but we wont convince eachother of anything here...I know people there, you will never convince me that it isn't a burdan because they havn't died.

To agree with Palzon, I even previously wrote,

I suspect that if you saw the movie we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of the two mothers in the movie who lost sons in the war, both were white. To the best of my recollection the only black mother we saw who lost a son, lost him in the world trade center. Moore wasn't making the point that you assumed he was, he was making the point that I said, that your article said, that is a reality. But I digress...

and...

Now while Moore did make it obvious that they were recruiting poor blacks, he also hit home that it was the "poor going to war for the rich," and then seemed to note that percentage wise the poor tend to be black. To me Moore was saying that the poor fight in larger percentages, more then he was saying, that the 'blacks fight' more.

^^^ which is also what palzon said, I don't know why your just getting it 'now'....

Keep in mind my origional responce was just poking fun at a F911 criticism, I was writing a responce to the critiques claims.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:05 pm

Gooberman wrote:...I loved his responce to Moore's criticism that poor blacks are sharing an unequal precentage load of the war burden,..

Maybe we speak a different dialect down here in the south but...It sure looks like you claim Moore said "poor blacks are sharing an unequal percentage..."

That says something all together different than "poor people share an unequal..."

If you (or he) had said poor "people" I wouldn't have responded the way I did.

So I still want to know:
Why do you think he said "poor blacks" if he meant 'poor people'...?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:15 pm

My point, was exactly what your article pointed out. Don't read more into it, don't read less into it. Read it just right

They make up 12% of the population, and almost 24% of the army. They are there, being there is a burdan. Do you think that they are just twice as enthusiasitc about joining the army then whites are?

Why are these numbers as they are?

That was the only critique I thought Moore was saying, it was the only one that I was saying. And reguardless of how your patriotic texas--your not considered to be the west anymore so get over it, and the alamo is smaller then my friggin appartment

--"cowboy" dialect conflicts with my Humble Arizona--we live through hell each summer, we are the west, we don't have any shacks that we name television stations after, and consider yall to be a bunch of New Yorker easterners

--cowboy one,

...its still a valid criticsm.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:08 pm

Saw it. *yawn* Praise Allah I had the capability to fast-forward.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:05 pm

Gooberman wrote:They make up 12% of the population, and almost 24% of the army.

but what percentage of the *poor population* do blacks make up? If you're going to talk about the war being an undue burden on the poor, then quoting statistics about the racial breakdown of the general population doesn't help anything. It's a meaningless statistic.

If the point is that the poor make up most of the burden of the armed forces, then that's a legitimate point. And if you notice that blacks are disproportionately poor, that's a legitimate point too (though it doesn't have anything to do with 9/11). But to carry the point through and say that, therefore, blacks carry too much of the burden... that's misleading. Smashing the two statistics into one makes it sound like there's some sort of racist agenda -- which is exactly what MooreCombat intends for you to think. But in order for the point about blacks to be meaningful *at all*, you have to break the statistic out -- what's the percentage of blacks within the age and economic demographic of people who normally join the army? Are they joining the army in disporportionate numbers? Is there any reason whatsoever, once you account for the fact that the *POOR* are bearing more of the burden, to say anything about race? Or is MooreCombat just playing the race card in an effort to tug at some heartstrings?

Furthermore, Goob, you have to carry through on the idea of burden -- out of those who are out there sharing this burden, be they black or white or whatever else, what benefits do they get when they return (or before they even left)? How many of them got a college education paid for? It's not as though they're over there for free -- they get paid wages, and from what I hear, they're not half bad. They get benefits like a free college education, low-cost housing, health care for their families, and on down the line. So yeah, they're carrying a burden, wherever they are and whatever race they are -- but they're not doing it for free. They volunteered AND they get paid -- so what is there to complain about? Too many blacks are getting a college education in exchange for serving their country?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:24 pm

nice of you to see a rip of the movie bash. how bad did it look?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:44 pm

Are you suggesting that since blacks decide to volunteer for duty twice as much as whites that we shouldn't send our military into war zones because it's a burden to them to actually have to do what they volunteered to do.

If so, would it be alright with you if we limit military enlistees to a maximum ratio of black soldiers equal to their ratio in the general population? That way we could once again use our military in war zones without creating an unequal burden for anyone.

While we're at it can we limit the ratio of blacks in the NBA and NFL to equal their ratio in the general population too?

How about the music industry? Can we have some equality there too?

How about on TV, can we keep the number of Black themed TV shows to the proper ratio please?

Or is it just the difficult jobs, the dangerous jobs that the black man needs to be protected from?
I guess, really though, we're talking about protecting him from himself aren't we, since these are all voluntary positions.
He just can't be left alone to find work any-old-where can he? Someone needs to tell him where he can seek employment because a black man burdened by the wrong job is apparantly a really big deal these days!
Hell, Michael Moore even made a big movie all about it!

It's all about the social injustices in our society that led the black man to pick a burdensome job.
And apparantly, Bush invented social injustice on Sept. 11th and that's why the movie is all about Bush and called Farenhieght 911.
Yea,It's all making sense now.

Tricky little texan he is too, because he got all those black guys to start volunteering for military duty decades before he was ever elected president.

Anyway, I wonder who leaked the truth about the black mans burden to Moore because he's never mentioned it before now...oh well at least he got word of it in time for the election cycle.

PS: I was born and reared in Texas but I'm an expatriot now...I live in South Carolina

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:50 pm

Ferno, it was fine.

Goob, for the record, DoD figures of racial/ethnic breakout from 2002 (the last time the study was completed AFAIK) shows that within the 18-24 age range, Blacks make up 16% of the armed forces compared with 14% of the American population. Extending that to age 44, then it goes up to 22%. The point being that within the ranks of those likely to be in frontline combat situations there really isn't as large a disparity compared to the general population as you make it out to be.

http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/popre ... ummary.htm

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:15 pm

I must commend you Bash... you did what I didn't think you would do. kudos.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:17 pm

Heh, I never said I wouldn't watch it, just that I wouldn't pay to watch it.

And since Moore is on record as saying he supports stealing it, my conscience is clear.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:36 pm

Theme song for this post: Fortunate Son -CCW

You know in the Civil War, if you were rich enough you could pay to not be drafted. Very interesting system, very heavily criticized as well. Did you guys think this was fair? There definitely is a logical side to it, each is contributing to the war, only downner is that it caused riots

.

It seems now what we do is the same thing, but we reinforce the other end, which is much more brilliant. We pay the poor to go to war for us. Like Lothar said, free college education, low-cost housing, health care for their families, all things that most wouldn't have a chance in hell of receiving if it wasn't for the armed forces.

But wait, who/where does this money to give all these poor people these extra percs so that they will fight (so the rich don't have too) come from? Which social group could finance such an encredible amount of extra benifits? hmmmm.... It's almost as if....second sentence of this post... nah... bad liberal. bad....

A Voluntary army should be so in the purest sence, or not at all.

If you really want to make the war voluntary, pay our soldiers minimum wage, don't offer these other benefits, and with the money we save start scholarship programs for the needy. Create a true volunteer army.

Now before you ask, "how else would we get soldiers to enlist?" First ask, "is it right to exploit the needs of the poor, to get them too enlist."

Lothar, the race card is incidental. It's not a heavy issue in the movie, and I have said repeatedly don't read too much into it. What the critique said was ridiculous, I hope we can all agree on that. That is what I was responding too. The fact that poor go to war, and poor make up a greater percentage within the black community are related statistics Lothar, not completely misleading as you say. It is still a valid criticism, no matter what dialect you speak.

South Carolina eh?

....too easy

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:14 pm

[EDIT]

THE NFL SHARES AN UNDUE BURDEN OF THE WAR EFFORT! Out of 951 total deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1 was an NFL player in 2001. That's 0.105% of the total casualties. On the other hand, out of 293,631,711 total people in the US, there are only 2144 NFL players, or 0.00073% of the total population. That means the NFL's burden is 144.01 times what it should be!!!!

Can you believe that evil president Bush? BUSH IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!

[/EDIT]

Gooberman wrote:you could pay to not be drafted.... Did you guys think this was fair?

Fair? No, of course not -- the poor couldn't afford to pay, but the rich could.

But then, you'll find I don't particularly care if things are "fair" or not -- I don't think fairness is a good quality to apply to arbitrary situations, and I'll often argue against things being arbitrarily made "fair". For example, it's not fair that I have the PhD sk1llz in math and you don't, but there's nothing *wrong* with that. It's not fair that Xciter has a ton of computers and I don't, but there's nothing wrong with that either. It's not fair that some of us have big families and some have small families, but there's nothing wrong with that either. It's not fair that my friend is crazy and I'm sane, but again, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not fair that some people have injuries that make them unable to fight in the army, while others do not -- but there's nothing wrong with that. Something being unfair does not automatically make it bad or wrong.

It's only when a thing *should be* fair and it isn't that we think that's a problem. For example, the justice system should be fair, and if it's not, there's something wrong. But there's no reason I should be fair in considering whether to give a nice piece of jewelry to my wife or some random other woman, and nobody will look down on me for giving more to my wife than I give to others. Fairness is not a virtue in and of itself -- it is only a virtue in certain situations.

Now, with respect to being able to pay to avoid fighting in the army: clearly, that's not fair. But I can't determine whether or not it's wrong, because I don't have enough facts -- I don't know what sort of benefit that rich person's money would have had to the army. I don't know if, by paying not to be drafted, that person financed the army to be able to hire 3 soldiers in his place (which would be a good thing -- he's enabling the army to be more effective) or if the payment was insufficient to even fund a replacement (which would be wrong -- he's harming his country's ability to fight.)

With respect to the current army, the system is totally fair -- everyone, right or poor, gets the same benefits if they're in the army. It happens that the poor are more likely to desire those benefits, but it's completely fair to everyone who joins in that they all get the same benefits.

If you really want to make the war volentary, pay our soldiers minimum wage, don't offer these other benefits, and with the money we save start scholorship programs for the needy. Create a true volunteer army.

But, you see, this would be *wrong*. It would still be fair -- everyone who was in the army would get the same pay -- but it would be *wrong* to not pay the soldiers a reasonable amount for their service to their country. You were just complaining that the poor have too much of the burden -- yet now you suggest that, perhaps, those who choose to carry the burden should have to make themselves poor in order to do so.

before you ask, "how else would we get soldiers to enlist?" First ask, "is it right to exploit the needs of the poor, to get them too enlist."

I don't care how we get people to enlist.

What I care is that, once they're enlisted, they're paid a reasonable amount for the service they do.

Before you go talking about how that's not a "volunteer" system, and how "volunteers" would work for no pay, I suggest you look up "voluntary" in the dictionary and notice that "done of one's own free will" is the first definition while "done without pay" is the second. It's a true volunteer military as long as nobody is forced into it -- even if the pay is excellent.

So, Goob, let me ask this again: are you suggesting that blacks are getting too many free college educations through service in the US military? (And don't keep giving me this "separate point" garbage -- this is entirely relevant to the statement that "poor blacks are sharing an unequal percentage." Also, if the real point is "the poor are sharing an unequal percentage" and the race thing is incidental, then face up to the fact that inclusion of the word "blacks" was either a mistake or an outright lie.)

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:40 pm

yet now you suggest that, perhaps, those who choose to carry the burden should have to make themselves poor in order to do so.

Absolutely not, very wealthy men could easily survive on what they had saved. Or, for some odd reason, do you think that these men might not serve?

are you suggesting that blacks are getting too many free college educations through service in the US military?

I answered this completely. The answer is in the second thing you quoted from me. Further, as I said, they are not completely seperate. Blacks more likely to be poor. Poor more likely to go to war. A=>B and B=>C then what else does A imply?

I suggest you look up "voluntary" in the dictionary and notice that "done of one's own free will" is the first definition while "done without pay" is the second.

Um...it's still the second definition. However it should really be a non-issue since I said, "A Voluntary army should be so in the purest since, or not at all. "

The bottom line, you seem to think that its ok that the poor fight for the rich. This is something we wont change eachothers minds on.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:18 am

Gooberman wrote:"A Voluntary army should be so in the purest since, or not at all."

Not if you want to win!
The world is a competative place and war is the ultimate competition. Our enemies will laugh at your sense of fair play while their mercenaries grind your bones to make their bread.

Gooberman wrote:The bottom line, you seem to think that its ok that the poor fight for the rich.

Not if you force them to, but it's ok for them to fight to earn a days pay if they want to. There are worse ways to earn a living, ever see what a crackhead will do for a dollar?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:28 am

Lothar wrote:are you suggesting that blacks are getting too many free college educations through service in the US military?

Gooberman wrote:with the money we save start scholorship programs for the needy.

Um, that doesn't answer the question.
Q: "Do blacks get too many free college educations through serving in the military?"
A: "With the money we save we should start scholarship programs for the needy."

That tells me nothing about whether or not you think blacks get too many scholarships from the *current* system. It only tells me that you think an alternative system might work better. But, of course, once you've spent the money to replenish the army somehow, there's no money left for that scholarship fund you were looking for...

Gooberman wrote:Further, as I said, they are not completely seperate. Blacks more likely to be poor. Poor more likely to go to war. A=>B and B=>C then what else does A imply?

"Blacks more likely to be poorly educated. Poorly educated more likely to be in the KKK." Obviously there's an abuse of the idea of "implication" somewhere here ;)

But yes, as I said before, I 100% agree that blacks are more likely to go to war -- but I think it's misleading to state it as "blacks are bearing an unequal share of the war burden". You can't separate "poor" and "blacks" (but you can't blame Bush or the army for that), and you also can't separate "burden" and "benefit". (Actually, I think the fact that the army helps blacks *out of poverty* means you should be giving major kudos to the army, rather than suggesting alternative spending.)

Goob wrote:
I suggest you look up "voluntary" in the dictionary and notice that "done of one's own free will" is the first definition while "done without pay" is the second.
Um...it's still the second definition. However it should really be a non-issue since I said, "A Voluntary army should be so in the purest since, or not at all. "

So what you mean is, the army should be voluntary in the sense that its members don't get paid, or else it should be not voluntary in any sense and people should be forced to fight?

I disagree with that. I think the most effective army will be no-draft, but good pay.

you seem to think that its ok that the poor fight for the rich.

In what sense?

I think it's OK that the poor fight in the army if they feel so inclined, and I think it's OK that the rich finance the army if they feel so inclined. I don't see where you get the "poor fight for the rich" idea, though -- the poor can fight for whatever cause they feel inclined to fight for, be it love of country, free college education, or whatever. I don't think anyone -- rich, poor, or whatever else -- is obligated to fight, though. So it's not as though the poor are taking the place of the rich.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:31 am

well when there is no more poor to fight for the rich, what will happen then?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:40 am

Almost Lothar, the words you were looking for came before the one you just quoted. (still in the second thing you quoted before).

"Blacks more likely to be poorly educated. Poorly educated more likely to be in the KKK.""

You have no statistics to go along with this. No supporting cases, (at least I hope not, it would be illogical

). Both the article Will posted, and even Bash's showed it to be more likely. Do you think Bash and Will gave me liberal statistics? Maybe Bash, but honestly, Will?!!?!?!?? He lives in South Carolina!

Not if you want to win!
-Will

I meant "not at all", as in "not at all volentary". Doesn't Germany force all males to serve two years? Whats wrong with this system? Then you can increase the pay for all I care, and, It would help us win!

but I think it's misleading to state it as "blacks are bearing an unequal share of the war burden".

Thatâ??s not my quote! Don't use other posts to get my quotes. I said "poor blacks are sharing an unequal percentage load of the war burden". Which again, Bash's liberal statistics, and Will's conservative statisitcs support.

but you can't blame Bush or the army for that"

Where did I do this?

means you should be giving major kudos to the army, rather than suggesting alternative spending

Spoken like a true pacifist!

then face up to the fact that inclusion of the word "blacks" was either a mistake

This whole thing started with me responding to an article that used the word blacks! It would be kinda hard for me not too!

as I said before, I 100% agree that blacks are more likely to go to war

then what are we arguing about? Do you think this is how it should be? if not, then its a valid criticism, thank you, good night.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:34 am

Gooberman wrote:the words you were looking for came before the one you just quoted.

So you answered "do you think blacks get too many scholarships?" with "If you really want to make the war volentary, pay our soldiers minimum wage, don't offer these other benefits"? OK, I suppose -- if you're saying, essentially, that everyone gets too many scholarships.

Goob wrote:
"Blacks more likely to be poorly educated. Poorly educated more likely to be in the KKK.""
You have no statistics to go along with this.

Both parts are statistically valid, though. It just so happens that statistical measures like "more likely" don't always follow from category to category. That's what I was demonstrating -- you can't treat "more likely to" as an implication; it's not the same thing. (Granted, it's a somewhat unrelated logical point -- nothing in the thread depends on this.)

means you should be giving major kudos to the army, rather than suggesting alternative spending
Spoken like a true pacifist!

Heh lol... but you've never said *you* are a pacifist. I'm not saying what *I* should do, I'm saying what *you* should do based on the morals you've given.

Goob wrote:
then face up to the fact that inclusion of the word "blacks" was either a mistake
This whole thing started with me responding to an article that used the word blacks!

Thusly?

while Moore did make it obvious that they were recruiting poor blacks, he also hit home that it was the "poor going to war for the rich," and then seemed to note that percentage wise the poor tend to be black. To me Moore was saying that the poor fight in larger percentages, more then he was saying, that the 'blacks fight' more.

What I'm trying to do is get you to clarify: do you think the reference to blacks was unnecessary and extraneous? If the point was essentially about the poor, then isn't it extraneous to say anything about the racial composition of the poor? Or do you think that it was still valid for MooreCombat to make the point about blacks, and therefore, the rest of this discussion is valid? In the above, you sort of brush off the reference to blacks. Do you think, then, that the reference to blacks didn't really belong there and that what really needed said was that the poor carry too much of the burden?

Goob wrote:
as I said before, I 100% agree that blacks are more likely to go to war
Do you think this is how it should be? if not, then its a valid criticism

It's a valid criticism of the fact that blacks are disproportionately poor -- but it's not a valid criticism of the military, unless you think there's something wrong with the military being made up mostly of poor people. You haven't given any valid reason for race to even be considered -- it's economic status that should be considered, and race happens to be tied in to economic status but is irrelevant.

Do I think that's how it should be? "No" on one count and "maybe" on the other. I don't think blacks *should be* poor -- but I do think Bill Cosby is right to say that many of them have to blame themselves (and, frankly, I think the military is a help to them in this case -- sending the poor, who happen to be disproportionately black, to college so that in future generations, perhaps, they won't make up as much of the poor.) But I don't see any reason why the poor shouldn't make up the bulk of the military. It makes sense to me -- the poor tend to make up the bulk of most physical-labor occupations, so why not the military? Now, if you want to argue that the poor should be given better educational opportunities, in order that they should be able to get better jobs (and "the lazy" should have the crappiest jobs), I agree -- and I think the army is one of the ways those better educational opportunities are being brought to the poor.

But, the point is, there's nothing the military or Bush administration are doing wrong on these counts (as MooreCombat would have you believe -- otherwise, why would he have framed the question with respect to war burden, rather than general "crappy jobs" burden?) There's no reason to be discussing this *within the context of discussion of 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan wars*. The fact that it was even brought up shows that somebody was attempting to play the race card where it shouldn't have been played.

thank you, good night.

You too. Sleep well, Goob.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:59 pm

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:42 pm

As someone who *just* saw the movie, let me clear something up:

Moore says NOTHING else except that a majority of poor people are in the army, mostly because it is their only option.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:50 pm

I believe there are many options other than joining the army. Take any town or city where Moore would have you believe there is no other choice and look in the newspaper under help wanted...

There is always a job to be found, however the army offers more than most employers for totally unskilled, undisciplined, semi-literate workers. Who's fault is it they are that unqualified for a better job?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:20 pm

I just saw it. I think you all missed his biggest point in respect to the poor in the military. It wasn't just that the poor serve in the military the most--that's usually a given in any society.

It was that the poor, who live disproportionately difficult lives, on average go to fight and die for our country more than anyone else, all that they ask for is that they send us over there for the right reasons. The mother whose son died in Iraq was a good example. She read a letter from her son who said before he died, I hate George Bush and this pointless war. She could have been proud of his death had it been for the right reasons, but for nothing leaves her with heartache.

Some great clips of lies in the movie by Rumsfeld and Bush. Oh bad intelligence is to blame, what a great excuse if you are a kindergartner, but not if you're president. There has to be a higher standard.

"Who's fault is it they are that unqualified for a better job? "

I don't know, this seems hardly fair. Do you support the cycle of poverty, or do you just not understand it?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:29 pm

Birdseye wrote:Do you support the cycle of poverty, or do you just not understand it?

I understand it, and understand no one has the remedy!
Maybe if we had a pure communist society and in spite of the pure equality it provided still only one segment of society ended up on the battlefield I'd agree with the unfair analogy but that's not our system.

Life isn't fair. The army isn't fair. If you join the army you will experience unfair duty. All children should know this before they reach the age of enlistment. If they don't I blame their parents.

There are legitimate criticisms for the cycle of poverty but the fact that our system is imperfect by no means justifies not fielding an army or using it in battle!
Further, just because Moore, the grieving mother and others think the war isn't justified doesn't make it so. I believe it is justified so the premise of that angle of your argument falls flat with me.

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:46 pm

Just saw it. Good, but needed a lot more nudity.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:55 am

Would your really want to see Mike al-Moore naked?

FWIW, here's some fact-checking of Moore's dreckumentary:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:28 am

here's another one:

http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smarterc ... 02017.html

Haven't read it very carefully, but I've seen it linked a couple times.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:42 am

Suncho wrote:I thought it was interesting how he didn't talk at all about America's Army and how the government is using video games to recruit soldiers!

That's because the are restarting the Draft!

Hold on to your controllers Kiddies!

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:58 am

Today's User Friendly about it made me smile...

Heh. Fahrenheit 9/11... the temperature at which pretty much everybody gives up and goes indoors. Unless they live in Colorado or Minnesota or something.

Ympakt · Post by **Ympakt** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:29 pm

Birdseye wrote:It wasn't just that the poor serve in the military the most--that's usually a given in any society.

....Oh bad intelligence is to blame, what a great excuse if you are a kindergartner, but not if you're president. There has to be a higher standard.

In response to the first statement, I have to ask the question, "Why?" In WWII, this was not the case. All types from all social levels enlisted, voluntarily! Obviously, then, there was a different attidude, a different work ethic in this country. There was a job that needed doing, and it it was worth doing, and the goal and reason were very clear. What has changed in the nation in the last 60 years that has brought on the change that makes the majority of middle- to upper-class deem service beneath them? Why are the lower classes targeted by recruiters? Perhaps it was the change from a rural/agricultural lifestyle to the more materialistic, sit-in-front-of-the-TV/Nintendo/PC, empty lifestyle prevalent today. The more regimented or formal upbringing present prior to WWII changed to smething "softer" today, and likely with that, the sense of duty to family and country vanished as well.
IMHO the attitudes present today are remeniscent of the fall of Rome. Numerous writings lament the loss of the hardiness of its military, the lack of discipline, the unwillingness of the common citizen to enlist, the softening up of the "Roman Mob." Rome was destroying itself by sheer weight of decadence and apathy and all it took was a push from a barbarian horde to finish it off. We are headed down a similar path.

The second statement is spot-on. When Ike set the D-Day invasion in motion he had 2 speeches already written; one in case of victory, one in case of defeat. It's easy to see why the man became POTUS, I would've voted for him. There isn't a shred of this fortitude in the Oval Office today. We have the "Teflon Don" of presidents. I think we can blame Nixon for the decline in accountability of the office, the man wasn't called "Tricky Dick" for nothing. Since his Presidency, almost all Presidents have done something that warranted their denial and dishonesty: Iran-Contra, and Lewinsky comet to mind... What's it going to take to get a man (or woman) in office that has a sense of responsibility and accountability, the B@!!S to do what has to be done. Hell, I'd run for it, but I hate politics....

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:30 pm

Because you hate politics, you would be the perfect president

.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:02 pm

Ympakt wrote:In WWII, this was not the case. All types from all social levels enlisted, voluntarily!

What makes you think that's not the case today? There are a lot more poor serving in the military than rich, but it's not as though there are *no* rich serving in the military. There are still a pretty decent number.

It would be interesting to check: has the number of rich people enlisting declined (as a percentage of total rich people), or has the number of poor enlisting simply increased (as a percentage of total poor people)?

Also, in the current conflict: keep in mind that the US maintains a fairly large army even in peacetime. Our peacetime army happens to be made up mostly of poor people -- which, frankly, makes sense. I don't think I've seen any statistics that refer to the racial / economic backgrounds of those who specifically volunteered to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan -- only stats for the military as a whole, which are not very useful.

Obviously, then, there was a different attidude, a different work ethic in this country.

"Obviously" is one of those words that makes mathematicians shudder. Half the time, it means "everyone already sees this conclusion". The other half of the time, it means "I'm going to say it's obvious and hope nobody calls my bluff, because I really can't back this statement up."

In the above case, you've stated there was a different work ethic. Can you demonstrate this is truly the case? In particular, can you answer the questions I raised above about people volunteering for the military after 9/11, and the questions I raise below in the same vein?

What has changed ... that makes the majority of middle- to upper-class deem service beneath them?

Do most middle/upper class people view military service beneath them? Or do they simply believe there's already an adequate army?

When WWII started, there was a huge call for volunteers. There has been no such call in this war, as far as I know. As far as I know, most of our all-volunteer military was already there before 9/11, so any statistics referring to our army will really be referencing the formation of a general-purpose army rather than the formation of a specific War-on-Terror army.

Why are the lower classes targeted by recruiters?

Because if there is no percieved need for a large army -- and there really wasn't all through the 1990's -- people won't take a pay cut to join the army.

Here's another statistic you should look up: of those troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many of them joined up in each year, from ~1990 to 2004?

If most of the current army joined up well before 2001, then *of course* it's a mostly-poor army -- they joined up during peacetime (joining an army that was trying to maintain its size, or possibly shrink -- not one that was trying to grow), and most people who join the army during peacetime when there's no strong perception of a need to make the army grow... those people are only going to join if it's a reasonable economic opportunity for them.

I think that's the most important thing to keep in mind when talking about the makeup of the army: when did people enlist, and what was the perceived need at that time? Did they enlist in 2003 when the WoT was clear, or did they enlist in 1996 when the army was just a general force to protect the US against "whatever threat"?