DescentBB

I'm going to start off by saying I haven't seen the movie but I want to. Also, I was never in support of the war in Iraq.

Alright... [Deep breath]

I've been thinking that Bush has been going about all of this wrong. There's only one thing he's done that I think was worth it: Going into Afghanistan. That was the smartest thing I've seen Bush do. After that, it goes straight down hill.

By going into Afghanistan, we were weakening terrorism. Taking out Osama was a great way to tell other groups that we were not going to put up with terrorism (a little late I might add). Well, Bush had to get his sights back on Iraq. ...very stupid move.

First, Bush used 10 year old information to create a "justified" war with Iraq. Ten years ago, Iraq could create WMDs (oh, I hate that term). Then guess what? There was the Gulf War. That stopped all that progress. ...and the UN pretty much kept the country from producing any more.

From the start I didn't believe Bush.

Next there was the fact that there is a suffering economy, and all Bush wanted was war, which in most cases hurts the economy.

Finally, by spreading our forces, we have made it harder to complete our goals. Also with that, we are/will get our troops tired of the war. Prisoner abuse and civilian deaths, have also given us an even worse picture which has made the terrorist threat larger. More and more people are finding it justified to fight back.

The Cold War era basically fed terrorism. In Afghanistan, we actually trained Al-Qa'ida so that they could fight off Russia. Then when they were through, we left the country war torn. That created a perfect chance for Al-Qa'ida to take hold of the country.

Oh well. I'm not wanting to type anymore, I've said enough for right now. I'll pick it up later.

Regarding your first reply, I found some data that was out of date: 25% poor, 55% working class, 20% middle class, and a statistically negligible amount of rich. I think that the number of poor enlisted has probably risen along with the poverty level, perhaps coinciding with a loss in the working- to middle-class. I spent hours digging through military and non-military sites looking for statistical or demographic data regarding household income of those that enlist. No one seems willing to post any hard data; It is either not recorded or sufficiently buried that I would need a day two to fish it out. However, I found repeated references to low-income schools and kids being targeted by recruiters in an agressive enough manner to actually start a small resistance movement. A current breakdown of those recruited: 96% HS diploma or less, 45% some college, 18% college eduacted. A plausible inference can be made that many see the military as a way to get to college that cannot afford to on their own, therefore are of working class or lower income. Also, college educated students tend not to be lower income, and are more likely to be officers, therefore not on the front lines.

Recruitment population statistics are available (I've searched them, but I'm not about to post reams of boring data), you can search them yourself here: http://www.dod.mil/prhome/ They are not broken down by conflict though. There are several sites that have unreferenced data showing that the frontline soldiers tend to be lower income minorities, yet the majority of the soldiers being killed tend to be middle income whites.

The second quote, I say "obviously" because if one can't see the difference between then and now, IMHO they've had their head in the sand. Read "The Greatest Generation", watch "1940's House", if you are lucky, talk to someone who was alive then. Take a hard look in the people around you and as yourself what they'd give up for a war. The gas-guzzling SUV? the cell-phone? Would they accept meatless Tuesdays? Rationing? Just too damn inconvienient. Whaddayamean enlist? F#$% that, I'm going to the mall. The loss in work ethic has demonstrated itself. Can you say, "ENRON"? How about, "Martha Stewart"? The lack of personal accountability (Mcd's hot coffee in the lap lawsuit), the scandals (corporate, presidential or indidividual), are to levels unheard of in the 1940's. These are just a few off of the top of my head. As far as post 9/11 enlistment, there might have been a spate of enlistment due to patriotic or vengeful motivation, but I think that didn't last very long. As you said, most of the military was already there prior to 9/11.

Your third reference you answered yourself with your very own "crappy jobs" stereotype. You seem to accept the very fact that there seems to be a need for poor people to fill these positions, including the not-so-good or dangerous jobs in the military; and that it is ok. I find this disturbing.

In WWII the youth was the first to be drafted or enlist. There was little or no "pay cut" to be taken at that age, but ther were many income levels represented, but not to the extent that the younger recruits/draftees were. Anyone who believes that the miltary has been adequately staffed has been asleep since 1990. The reserves were called up for Desert Storm by Presidential Order on 12 Aug 1990. They haven't had a break since then, and they are calling out even more as I write this. Did you know there are 2 Bills in Congress right now that seek to re-instate the draft by '05? Its not a rumor folks. You also say "...*of course* it's a mostly poor army..." Prove to me that there was a rush of working- middle- upper-class enlistees after 2001.

Ympakt wrote:Regarding your first reply, I found some data that was out of date: 25% poor, 55% working class, 20% middle class, and a statistically negligible amount of rich....

All right, fair enough. Did you find similar statistics for WWII volunteers? Not draftees, mind you -- volunteers. Since you're trying to compare this era to that one, I'd like to see hard data for both.

Also, how does this compare to the breakdown of the population itself? If 25% of the military is poor and 25% of the population is poor, then they're right on target. If 25% of the military is poor but only 5% of the population is poor, then the poor are pretty overrepresented. What those numbers mean depends a lot on how they compare to the same numbers in WWII and the same numbers in the population at large.

The second quote, I say "obviously" because if one can't see the difference between then and now, IMHO they've had their head in the sand.... Take a hard look in the people around you and as yourself what they'd give up for a war. The gas-guzzling SUV? .... Whaddayamean enlist? F#$% that, I'm going to the mall.

It's pretty hard to say what they'd give up for "a war" -- I can only tell you what people gave up for that war, and compare it to what people gave up for this war. But then, what people have given up is what people percieve they need to -- and there simply isn't any perception nowadays that people need to give anything up for the WoT, because the perception is that we've got adequate ability to win it. Why would anyone give up their cell phone or SUV, and why would anyone enlist, if they thought the army was already perfectly capable of handling whatever was thrown at them? In WWII, there was a clear statement that we needed people to enlist and we needed people to ration, or else we were going to lose the war -- but in this conflict, so far, nobody seems to think that's the case.

This is why I brought up the question of a "huge call for volunteers" and a call to sacrifice -- there hasn't been much of one. Who's going to give anything up if nobody thinks there's any need to give anything up?

The loss in work ethic has demonstrated itself. Can you say, "ENRON"? How about, "Martha Stewart"?

You think such things didn't happen during WWII? We have more publicity about them now, but I'm pretty sure corruption has been going on since the dawn of time. Is there more now than there was then? That's questionable. (BTW, you should read up on the McDonalds Hot Coffee incident before you reference it in support of your position.)

Your third reference you answered yourself with your very own "crappy jobs" stereotype. You seem to accept the very fact that there seems to be a need for poor people to fill these positions, including the not-so-good or dangerous jobs in the military; and that it is ok. I find this disturbing.

What "crappy jobs" stereotype would this be? All I talked about was low pay. If there's no perception that the army needs a lot of people to enlist, who's going to enlist for low pay? Only those for whom they pay is comparable to what they could get elsewhere, or those who have a lifelong goal of serving in the army. That's simple economics.

I don't see where you get this "accept the fact that... poor people [need to] fill these positions" idea. All I see is that the military offers a particular wage for those who enlist, and economics takes over. If the wage is low, poor people will enlist. If the wage is high and there's a high education requirement to get in, more rich people will enlist. You can be disturbed by this if you want, I suppose...

In WWII the youth was the first to be drafted or enlist.... Did you know there are 2 Bills in Congress right now that seek to re-instate the draft by '05?

Right -- and now, with an all-volunteer army, youth are the first to enlist, but there is no draft.

I'm well aware of the bills to reinstate the draft -- they were discussed in this thread, though I'd studied them before. Specifically, I refer you to my first post, where I point out the number of D's next to the names of the guys sponsoring the bills -- the draft bill is a *scare tactic* and nothing more.

Anyone who believes that the miltary has been adequately staffed has been asleep since 1990.

*shrug*... the *perception* out there in the general public, today, is that the military is basically adequately staffed.

You don't hear people saying "the military needs more people, but that type of work is beneath me" or "the military needs more people, but I'd rather not do it" -- for the most part, the general public doesn't percieve the military as being understaffed. That's all that matters for the point I made -- people won't enlist in great numbers if they don't see reason to enlist, and so far, the general public doesn't see much reason to enlist.

Prove to me that there was a rush of working- middle- upper-class enlistees after 2001.

I never made that claim. The only claim I made is "If most of the current army joined up well before 2001, then *of course* it's a mostly-poor army" and I believe I've proven that adequately. Whether or not there would be a rush of non-poor enlistees after 2001 would depend greatly on whether or not people in those classes saw a great need to enlist.

You're saying the military today is made up of mostly poor people because the work ethic of most people has fallen off since World War II. I'm suggesting that you need to look up the numbers in order to substantiate your claim. In particular, look up the way the general population broke down in both eras. Compare this with the breakdown of the military, and further, with the breakdown of those who were drafted versus those who volunteered. Furthermore, look at the breakdown of those who volunteered during peacetime versus those who volunteered during wartime. And look at the way the general public percieves the war. Test your belief -- you made the claim that there's a different work ethic, and you've tried to support it in various ways, so I'm demonstrating to you how it is that you can really test that.

The data, at least as it's been presented so far, doesn't support your claim that "obviously, there was a different attitude..." You've produced a set of numbers without any context (the first quote of this post), made some sweeping generalizations (second and sixth quotes), provided some anecdotes (third quote), misrepresented what I wrote (fourth quote), referenced a phantom scare-tactic draft (fifth quote), and then tried to shift the burden of proof onto me (seventh quote). Your point may very well be true -- there may very well be a different work ethic -- but what you've cited as support for your point is pretty lacking.

Well, now that I've seen this film myself here in Belgium (only 5EUR, too ) I feel like writing a little to those who haven't seen it, but still think they can discuss it over all the same.

Moore's film is a series of open questions, from beginning to end. He brings facts from interviews with politicians, congressmen, people on the streets, and footage from press conferences, and puts everything toghether in a movie. Half of the movie are facts, the other half is politically irrelevent but shows the implications of political descisions on human level (i.e. the woman who lost her son in Iraq, or Moore trying to convince congressmen to enlist their children).

This film is actually brilliant, in that it doesn't accuse anybody of anything. It just raises questions. It's purpose is to raise questions, to instore a trace of doubt within the mind of the blind Bush&C° followers. You will have a hard time convincing yourself Bush is still the most suited person to be in office, but you still can. There are only questions, there are no accusations, no deductions and no conclusions. That's why the movie can't be dismissed that easily.

Of course, it doesn't leave much of Bush'es reputation standing. But then again, is this still the case even without this movie?

Oh, and Tom, regarding your going to the theatres only twice a year, make an exception for this one, will you? This is all real life. Hyped up, sure, but it's real. It's not some goddamn hollywood cook up that sucks balls. This film is important not because of itself, but because of what it covers. If you can watch it through and still don't have the trace of a doubt about Bush, then he can call you a blind follower and a precious vote

Tricord wrote:Moore's film is a series of open questions, from beginning to end.... This film is actually brilliant, in that it doesn't accuse anybody of anything. It just raises questions.

Pierre, have you stopped sexually abusing your sister? I haven't accused you of anything -- I've just raised a question

Only, the question itself contains an accusation. If I wanted to be clever, I could come up with a way to veil it a bit more, and given enough time, I could manage to create a bunch of questions that would make you look really bad. Remember this: there is a such thing as a flawed question. There is a such thing as a leading question. And there is a such thing as an accusatory question.

Catherine works in a thrift shop as a book pricer, and recently came across a book about critical thinking. It had whole lists of questions with respect to particular issues, and from the lists of questions, it became blatantly obvious what worldview the author held and what worldview he hoped to convince you of. Even though he only asked questions, the questions were designed to draw you to a particular conclusion. Reading through that book would have been a waste of my time.

You will have a hard time convincing yourself Bush is still the most suited person to be in office...

Why do you think that?

A number of others have seen the movie (bash is one of them) and many of them remain convinced Bush is the most suited to be in office. I haven't heard a single Bush supporter say "I watched f911 and it totally changed my mind". What makes you think I will be any different? Please don't resort to blatant flattery here -- honestly, what makes you think I'd have to try very hard to convince myself?

In particular, given Michael Moore's penchant for manufacturing data, ripping quotes out of context, etc. what makes you think any of the questions he raises will be of the sort that will cause me any difficulty whatsoever?

it doesn't leave much of Bush'es reputation standing.

To those who already believed Bush had no reputation, that's probably true. Similarly, to those who already believe the Bible is a bunch of crap, a list of contradictions will leave them utterly convinced. But recall Drakona's post about communication, where she wrote "incidental facts and lazy research don't really bother anybody, even if they can't explain them." Every indication so far is that this film is filled with incidental facts and lazy research, so what makes you think it will bother me in the slightest? If I started from your perspective, of course this movie would be must-see -- but from my perspective, it's not worth the 2 hours *or* the 7 bucks to go see, let alone both.

If you can watch it through and still don't have the trace of a doubt about Bush, then he can call you a blind follower and a precious vote

That's a nice backhanded shot at bash, who watched it through and didn't have the slightest change of heart.

Your argument is essentially "if you can hear this argument and still hold that position, then you're stupid." Then once I hear the argument, I have a social reason (not being thought of as stupid) to believe it, even if the argument itself is completely unconvincing. You should know better than to use such a lame argument technique.

Seriously, Pierre -- is there anything in that film that hasn't been discussed here that you think would be even slightly disconcerting to me?

Oh, I know how deeply your convictions are rooted in your mind, Tom The only bit that was intended at you directly was the "go see it" part. Going to the theatres is more than wasting 7 bucks and two hours, it might be quality time with your wife, for example. But I guess you're not that kind of guy, then.

Of course a question carries a connotation. I can immediately dismiss the connotation carried in the sexually abusing my sister question. I don't have a sister. However, were Bush himself to view this movie, he'd have a hard time explaining his way out. Nothing suggests this is impossible, though.

That's all. In my opinion, the movie doesn't attempt anything more than that -- which is why it is so good. It can't just be talked off the table by administration supporters because it is nuanced and therefore unconclusive. Something which you are definitely not.

TheCops wrote:THE WHO?

I loved this subtle dig:

"He added that he wished Moore and the film well. "But he'll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar."

Tricord, does the part about letting the bin Laddin family fly out of the country come off as if they were allowed to fly out while everyone else was still grounded?
What is the point of that part?
Help me out, I don't get the nuance of what Moore was up to there.

Tricord wrote:Going to the theatres is more than wasting 7 bucks and two hours, it might be quality time with your wife

I have much better forms of quality time with my wife. But yes, going to see a comedy might be fun ;)

were Bush himself to view this movie, he'd have a hard time explaining his way out.

Again, you believe this because of your preconceptions about Bush.

I think Bush would see this movie and think "wow, this guy is a nutjob." IMO, Bush would have the easiest time out of anyone dismissing this movie -- because he knows the truth about himself. He'd be able to look at the "questions raised" and shrug them off, because he'd know what was true, what was a blatant lie, what was irrelevant, etc.

It can't just be talked off the table by administration supporters because it is nuanced and therefore unconclusive.

LOL... "nuanced"... hahahaha...

I can completely shrug off the suggestions that I go see the movie. To me, that says it's already been talked off the table. People who have seen it have said what they got out of it, and the end result is that I'm now much more sure that I'm not interested in watching it. It's a movie that lefties see and think "gospel", righties see and think "propaganda", and sensible people see and think "I should've watched Shrek 2 instead." Like somebody already said in this thread, it's not going to change anybody's mind.

Heh, it's pretty pointless throughout, Will. It's a disjointed jumble of scenes backed with alternately sinister/cartoon music, whiney voice-over insinuations and dishonest editing all leading up to... nothing, zip, nada. Rinse. Repeat. It's a cinematic game of Connect The Dots where Moore leaves out many more dots than in, some so common knowledge that the blatant attempt at manipulation becomes more embarrassing than appalling. It's like watching a really, really bad magician fumble with basic parlor tricks. One is more amazed that anyone got fooled than by the poorly performed trick itself.

The overall effect is to drench Bush in the appearance of criminality (and obviously that is Moore's intent) but the crimes Bush is accused of are never articulated or simply don't exist. It's like every senseless lefty rant about conspiracy this, conspiracy that that anyone who's been online during the last few years has seen posted (and never substantiated) countless times. There's a few dots there that could mean something but what the hell are you driving at?!!!1 It's two hours of *wink, wink* that simply has no substance or purpose beyond making Bush look foolish by whatever means necessary. I'd love to see anyone try to defend or prove any of Moore's *conclusions* simply because there are none.

The only hint of a conclusion I could detect is that two very rich families conspired to wage global warfare to become rich.

Wholely simplistic (hardly nuanced), unoriginal, petty, shallow and ametuerish. I predict it will be long forgotten by November. It's that bad. But it's worse sin is that I expected to be angered and instead I was bored.

It's a movie that lefties see and think "gospel", righties see and think "propaganda", and sensible people see and think "I should've watched Shrek 2 instead."

Very well put, Lothar.