Michael Moore, whats your opinion????

Not to start another wind-up, and You must all believe that I do respect Europe, and Europes contributions to the advancment of mankind. But I have to laugh when I hear Americans Liberals up in “a tizzy” about How the Germans and French are reacting to our foreign policy actions.. As if the Germans and French have a leg to stand on when it comes to developing a coherant and rational foreign policy!!! like asking a blind guy to drive you to the supermarket>>>
Anyway, I’ll be leaving this thread, Take Care, See you on the Mil forums….By the way Heading to C-17 school soon..perhaps I’ll be visiting you all soon
TTP
PS Thanks Sauron for your insight and common sence!

Gee another thread where Euros get to vent their spleens about how degenerate the U.S. is and how superior they are.

Lectures from Euros about values are about as credible as lectures about American social excesses from a fat 350 lb slob such as Moore.

Sauron

Thank you Sauron for an other major contribution to the discussion.

Sauron Sauron Sauron.. why aren’t you in military aviation forum, we need some one there 🙁

Gee another thread where Euros get to vent their spleens about how degenerate the U.S. is and how superior they are.

Lectures from Euros about values are about as credible as lectures about American social excesses from a fat 350 lb slob such as Moore.

Sauron

There they go again.
“Our civil war was more bloody than your civil war…”

Flood.™

I agree with the script lads 😮 😮 Flood culture beast representing Robbo 😀 😀 ITS WRAP 😀 😀

Sorry , I didn’t get that you were speaking of American only.
It makes sense that a war overseas makes “less” casualties than a “domestic” one.

However just to give a picture : the only ” bataille de la Marne ” during WWI killed more than 1 million. 1 million people killed on a single battle field.
I guess that Stalingrad was close to 3 million (if my memory is still accurate).
It’s scary…

The casualties that were accrued in past wars still amazes me. It’s almost impossible to imaging casualties in orders of hundreds of thousands, let alone millions. It seems we have always fought the same way as we did the last war, only with the newer weapons we’ve developed. Civil war: old-school toe to toe in a field, only with ACCURATE rifles and cannon=suicide. WWII turned into a trench war when artillery and machine guns rendered the old style TOTAL suicide. The blitzkrieg made the rest of us re-think our strageties REALLY quickly. There were tens of thousands of civilians killed at NORMANDY alone! The airel bombardment that was used in WWII eventually turned into mass destruction when it entailed thousands of B-29’s and incendiaries… Add nuclear weapons and see hiroshima and nagasaki.

When you compare the amount of firepower let loose in Iraq, it’s utterly amazing that so few have died.

consider the progress made in 50 years. No longer is the mass death s of civilians acceptab;le in war. Not bad for just 50 years of history.

Hand 87-5

Revised numbers
558,052 Americans died in the Civil War
116,708 in WWI
407,316 in WWII

Sorry , I didn’t get that you were speaking of American only.
It makes sense that a war overseas makes “less” casualties than a “domestic” one.

However just to give a picture : the only ” bataille de la Marne ” during WWI killed more than 1 million. 1 million people killed on a single battle field.
I guess that Stalingrad was close to 3 million (if my memory is still accurate).
It’s scary…

Hand 87-5

Revised numbers
558,052 Americans died in the Civil War
116,708 in WWI
407,316 in WWII

Hand 87-5

The intent of my post was to show some of the hipocracy of many of the arguments on this thread. Essentially many Europeans look upon the US as a backward, lawless nation filled with gun-toting kooks who eat McDonalds every day…..Yet You enlightened Europeans have caused so much more misery in the world than any of us gun-toting Americans can ever imagine. It may be hard for the average European to understand the average Americans belief in individual freedom, as opposed to the common well-being of all, that Europeans seem to embrace, Hence This argument will go nowhere. Just understand this, I don’t own a gun, nor do I hunt, and I’d probably feel bad about killing an animal, but I would fight for my neighbors right to do all of those activities.
For historical purposes, I believe over 400,000 Americans were killed in our Civil War, much more than in any other war since.
Take care,
TTP

I just posted “SINCE” the civil war.
However I doubt that the civil war made millions of victims.

TTP ,

But it was war. So you compare a country which never had any war on his soil since the civil war and Europe which had experienced 2 Wolrd wars.

That’s an interesting figure’s manipulation , but you were kinding right?

We had a really REALLY nasty war about 150 years ago. Pretty interesting history there, too. More Americans died in the civil war than in all other wars combined.

There wouldn’t have been a civil war had the militia not existed. The South had enough armed citizens to put up a fight against the US army.

Reasons and outcomes aside, the fact that it happened, and went on for so long, and was SO close, shows the power of the militia, and the armed citizens. If the South had better justification—-not needed slavery—the north would not have had the support, and would have lost.

nobody’s going to invade us. you could make the whole US military disappear, and still nobody would be able to invade. The amount of armed ciotizens is absolutly staggering–most people collect so many guns, that, should they need to use them in defense of the country, they’d have enough to arm the people that DON’T have guns!

The scope of it all is such that SHOULD the government ever pass a law banning the ownership of all guns, it could not be enforced.
IF what was done in Australia or England happened in the US…it simply couldn’t happen…it’s not comprehensable. the govenrment would KNOW they would bring about war. They wold be passing a law for which it was impossible to enforce. A hundred million people saying in unison “from my cold, dead, hands” is not something the US government is going to contend with by force.
If somehow, people in power passed such a law, you would see gun owners gather in DC in numbers not seen before on this planet, multiple millions would march–weapons in hand–through the capital, and unseat the people in power.

After all, that’s the reason we have to guns. To make sure we can keep them.

I get a kick from many of you “shocked” Europeans preaching about how “neanthedal” and backwards American culture and Gun ownership is. I dare challenge my “outraged” European neighbors, who are so happy to be separated from the US by the Atlantic ocean, to add up all the murders in the United States due to guns from our founding in 1776 till today. Then compare that number with the waterfall of horrors inflicted upon all corners of the world since 1776 by my esteemed European breatheren, who seem to live on a higher cultural plane, and have attained such a high degree of enlightenment and sophistication that we dumb Americans can never hope to attain!
Lets start with all the horrors of colonialism, of which the mess today in the Middle East is a direct result of
Napoleanic Wars
Numerous other wars of the 19th century
World War One…Milliond dead
World War Two …Many more millions dead
The Holocaust…^ million Jews incinerated and gassed, Very Civilized!
And lets not forget the Great European derived philosophy called Communism, which has enslaved millions and killed many more millions…The list goes on and on!!

Now lets hear your smug replies to my friend Pluto.
One other aspect about the whole gun ownership debate, is there are literally millions of guns in the US, It is very naive to believe that if the US banned gun ownership today, that the “bad guys” would turn them in, and there would be no more gun violence….its a very left-wing way of looking at the issue, idealistic but of no practical consequence…the guns will still be around and the bad guys will always get them!! sad but true,
And just remember, with all these Americans toting guns and taking target practice, it should make you all feel that much safer, since our boys will probably have to cross that Ocean your so glad exists and bail you out again from the next mess you start!!! Maybe if the French owned Guns the Nazi’s wouldn’t have had such a walk in the park as they entered Paris in 1940 as well as all those other European capitals that we liberated…
PS Michael Moore is a liar, with an agenda
I enjoy debate, but some of you haven’t a clue and preach from a high perch,
The US isn’t perfect, but when you guys were running the show all hell was breaking loose every decade or so…………The world owes Europe a tremendous debt, but You have many more warts than America can ever earn !
TTP

TTP ,
You all the respect that you deserve , don’t you think that it’s an easy manipulation.

Sure ther were weapons in Europe during WWI ( and too many actually) and for sure we had more casulaties that in the US.

But it was war. So you compare a country which never had any war on his soil since the civil war and Europe which had experienced 2 Wolrd wars.

That’s an interesting figure’s manipulation , but you were kinding right?

I get a kick from many of you “shocked” Europeans preaching about how “neanthedal” and backwards American culture and Gun ownership is. I dare challenge my “outraged” European neighbors, who are so happy to be separated from the US by the Atlantic ocean, to add up all the murders in the United States due to guns from our founding in 1776 till today. Then compare that number with the waterfall of horrors inflicted upon all corners of the world since 1776 by my esteemed European breatheren, who seem to live on a higher cultural plane, and have attained such a high degree of enlightenment and sophistication that we dumb Americans can never hope to attain!
Lets start with all the horrors of colonialism, of which the mess today in the Middle East is a direct result of
Napoleanic Wars
Numerous other wars of the 19th century
World War One…Milliond dead
World War Two …Many more millions dead
The Holocaust…^ million Jews incinerated and gassed, Very Civilized!
And lets not forget the Great European derived philosophy called Communism, which has enslaved millions and killed many more millions…The list goes on and on!!

Now lets hear your smug replies to my friend Pluto.
One other aspect about the whole gun ownership debate, is there are literally millions of guns in the US, It is very naive to believe that if the US banned gun ownership today, that the “bad guys” would turn them in, and there would be no more gun violence….its a very left-wing way of looking at the issue, idealistic but of no practical consequence…the guns will still be around and the bad guys will always get them!! sad but true,
And just remember, with all these Americans toting guns and taking target practice, it should make you all feel that much safer, since our boys will probably have to cross that Ocean your so glad exists and bail you out again from the next mess you start!!! Maybe if the French owned Guns the Nazi’s wouldn’t have had such a walk in the park as they entered Paris in 1940 as well as all those other European capitals that we liberated…
PS Michael Moore is a liar, with an agenda
I enjoy debate, but some of you haven’t a clue and preach from a high perch,
The US isn’t perfect, but when you guys were running the show all hell was breaking loose every decade or so…………The world owes Europe a tremendous debt, but You have many more warts than America can ever earn !
TTP

Yes, they were wacko’s. But people who believe in animal rights are not. (same argument as the one above). Don’t be shocked for what I’m now going to say, but this is what’s animal rights is about.
1. First there were civil rights (French Revolution), restricted for citizens only (racial disputes)
2. Then there were human rights (WWII) = all men/women are equal (giving rights as well to the black)
3. Now is the time for animal rights. If we are not allowed to distinct people from the fact that they have different colour, why should we distinct animals from human race. They can suffer as well. (P. Singer) Should animals hence be allowed to vote? Ofcourse not.

You see, here’s a difference in philosiphy.
Animals should be treated humanely, I agree, I’m an animal lover–I probably have more animals than any one else on this board. I also have a B.S. degree in zoology.
I don’t know about “rights”. To me, a right is something that is “given” to someone or something, and that something has an understandig of it somehow, consiously or subconciously. I’m not sure if I, or anyone else, could say that animals have “”rights”.

I do NOT repeat NOT, support animal RIGHTS groups, because they contort the good will of many for their purposes. Animal WELFARE groups, on the other hand, would be ok.
Animals should not be tortured, or slaughterd in painful methods. They should not be alowed to be mistreated, or neglected.
I agree with all that.

However, organizations like the Humane society of America, or PETA, have entirely different things in mind. People support and join these groups, simply because they want to prevent cruelty to animals–and who wouldn’t, it’s a noble cause?

these groups have a perverse idea of what rights animals have.
Anyone have a dog or cat? They want it dead. Birds, fish, reptiles, pet rats…? All must be exterminated. All pets that are wild animals, not domesticated, will also require euthanasia.

Think I’m full of it?

here’s their philosiphy:
All domestic animals are products of human intervention in the natural world, and therefore not legitimate parts of the ecosystem, and undeserving of a place in the world. All animals captured or bred for human purposes have been robbed of their ability to survive in the wild, and have been confined, tortured, against their will in captivity, so, to relieve them of this torment, they must all be killed–for releasing them would damage the environment.

All domestic animals which mankind has developed for food or other use are simply results of mankind’s evil perversion of nature, and must die. With all domestic animals out of the way, mankind can now feed every last human on earth, using crops that once fed cattle to now feed the starving.

ALL animals will live in nature, All dog breeds will be gone, same with domestic cats, birds, cattle, horses, goats, sheep, pigs, and ducks–no more wool, milk cheese, meat, horse riding, leather, KFC, BBQ.

The people at PETA have spoken: If they had it their way, they’d kill your dog, take your wool sweater, and never let you have Ice cream again.

Then, they’d feed all the starving masses with al the spare grain and corn….until the starving people had kids…and being that they relied on other people to feed them , were unbable to feed their grandkids…so instead of a million people starving to death, we have a billion….

I love animals, I keep dozens at home. I eat meat. I would ike to see slaughterhouses kill with as lttle pain as possible. I don’t want tosee animals treated like pure commodities. It bothers me. they DO have feelings too.

But don’t equate them with human rights. We’re animals, yes, but animals are NOT humans. Simply put: We go first, all others second. It is our duty as Species #1 to be responsible, however, and some people seem to be ignorant to that.

Sorry to say this, but WRONG !!!!!!!!!

Environmentalists think very economically. They think the human race should have the right to use the environment for their own use. Not much difference between the real word of western economy so far. However, they think we should save some of the natural resources for later generations so they can have a human life style as well.

The “whacko’s” you mean are deep ecologists. They think the human race is just a part of nature and hence, we have no right to exploit resources what-so-ever, because it’s not proven that we, as mankind, have a fundemantal right to exist (they say).

I’m an environmentalist (tree hugger you may say), from a very egocentric point of view. If there aren’t any trees left, the human race is not going to survive. We live in a post-modern era, if one still believes that we can go on like this forever, you are naïve as well. At the same time, I’m a hypocrit, as I don’t really want to change my lifestyle (like sitting in the cauch watching game shows etc), even though I realise it should be different.

Srr for bad spelling and twisting some sentences, but in a hurry

Not all environmentalists are whackos, didn’t mean to over–generalize things.

Another difference in definition. Over here, most people that call themselves environmentalists are simply people that get caught up in the good intentions of saving the environment, and put everything else(including human needs) to the side.

Know what I do for a living? I’m a biologist, an environmental scientist. I ensure that transportation projects have minimal impacts on the natural environment, I check for endangered species, wetlands and streams.

All of my co workers are the strongest supporters of conservation and natural resources you could find–and most of us despise environmentalists. They cannot see the need for certain things, roads, bridges, etc. We put up a million miles of road, hundereds of bridges, etc, and they claim it’s all destruction of wetlands and forests–and this gets out, and college students get upset at all the habitat loss. What they fail to mention is that we replace what we impact–often on a 1:3 RATIO!

the forestry industry wants to log national forests, so these whackos protest, and say that Bush has the forestry industry in his pocket.

these people want to save the forests, yet they have no comprehension of how to do it! They see loggers cutting down trees and they cry. They do not understand that most of the commercialy forested trees must be harvested, either by loggers or by fire. And forests adjacent to communities are nto allowed to burn.

The ONLY way to let the land return to it’s “natural” state is to let it burn, and that’s simply not an option.

Similarly, these same people want to ban hunting, because it’s not natural, and is cruel. Well, what IS natural is far less deer–we have a deer population several HUNDRED times greater than it was before the white man came. Also, natural deer-control was Puma concolor and Canis lupus, which proved to be more or less incompatible with Homo sapiens, and were reduced to numbers too small to effectivle control deer. Now, the only control methods are hunting, or starvation. I’m sure gettin blasted with a .308 is more dramatically violent, but has anyone ever seen what a deer dying of starvation looks like? We took over the role of fire, and the role of hunter, we are the top species of this planet. We cannot sit idly by and wish it back to “nature” without our intervention. Neither can we ignore the rest of the earth and exploit the resources without understanding their place in all things. We are here, and we, as any species impact the rest of the ecosystem. We must understand that NO species will overpopulate to the point of extinction–there are checks and balances, disease, starvation, etc. And we must understand that we are the only species with the capability of understanding the road to such a situtaion, and the only species that has the foresight to avoid such a situtation.

Yes, possible, but you still haven’t answered my original question: the US constitution is based on liberal ideas (philosopically so no political tree-hugging sh!t): Kant, Montesqieu, Locke, Hobbes (probably Kant most of all, even more than Locke). The founders of the constitution were ‘liberals’, which meant they took distance from the Judeo-Christian values, which they found themselves to be backward and fundamentalistic (I’m not saying this, in contrary). Religion is allowed, but has no “constiutional meaning”, and is restricted to the private level, to ensure state and religion are sepperated.
So theoretically, ‘conservatives’ in America who don’t want to change the constitution are actually ‘liberals’. Paradox: Bush is considered to be a conservative, however, he wants to change the constitution to disallow gay-marriage. Same with Reagan.

The Constutition hasn’t changed since 1783, only ammendments have been made. But times have changed indeed, as you pointed out. The people who want to change the constitution though, are politically conservative. The US constitution is quite socialist in this matter: everyone should have the right on social aid (not the duty of the gov’t!!). Semantic crap you say, maybe, but this proves that the US in theory is not a a-social state where people are not to be helped by the gov’t. The people who want to change the constitution are the conservatives, not the liberals.

Well, at the time, the US constitutiona was liberal. However, I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding of certain aspects of it. There was ans never has been a separation of church and state, as is often spoken of. The same letter from Thomas jefferson that coined the phrase “separation fo church and state” also said that “the State must be kept OUT of the church, but god help us if the church is kept out of the state.” (not an EXACT QUOTE, but close)

The “separation” was not to “Remove” it fromt he government. IT was always intended to be the basis of our law. The separation was there to ensure that the gov. could not, and would not, impose a mandatory religion, (Church of England).

Bush does NOT want to change the constitution to stop gay marriage. Another myth perpetuated by the US media…
Ticks me off.
the Constitution never mentions that marriage is only between a man and woman–nobody would have ever considered a gay marriage as a possibility back then. IT does, however, by a clause I cannot remember(..fair faith and credit clause???) ensure that ANY binding agreement, or marriage, granted in one state, will be recognized in all states.
HENCE: The people of california may choose to allow gay marriage, whilst the people of North Carolina, being far more conservative, and far more in line with christian beliefs, would NEVER vote for their state to allow gay marriage.
BECAUSE the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCES all states to accept marriages from ALL STATES, states that DO NOT want gay marriage will be FORCED to accept gay marriages from other states, when the whole purpose of allowsing states to vote for gay marriage is to allow states that want it to have it, and states that don’t, to NOT have it…
THAT, is a paradox. The only solution is to constitutionally define the term Marriage. If a Marriage is only between a man and a woman–as it was ALWAYS intended by the founders of the Constitution–then there is no problem. A state that wants it can allow it, and other states won’;t be forced to accept it. They get their ceremony, their benifits, etc. People in more conservative states don’t have to put up with it. Everyone’s happy!

As far as the fed’s concerned, they are not in a marriage, but rather a civil union. But that’s the federal government, the state can call it whatever they want.

Flood told me not to respond to this thread as he thought it was wrap well i told him I would and now hes left me 😀 😀 😀 Anna 😉 😉 Flood oops Anna 😉 😀

The same here: liberal means right wing (even ultra right wing).

I think that pretty much sums up French politics in general.

The unabomber killed people because he wanted to stop them from destroying the environment–just like the people at the earht liberation front, or the animal lib. front. WHACKOS!!!

Yes, they were wacko’s. But people who believe in animal rights are not. (same argument as the one above). Don’t be shocked for what I’m now going to say, but this is what’s animal rights is about.
1. First there were civil rights (French Revolution), restricted for citizens only (racial disputes)
2. Then there were human rights (WWII) = all men/women are equal (giving rights as well to the black)
3. Now is the time for animal rights. If we are not allowed to distinct people from the fact that they have different colour, why should we distinct animals from human race. They can suffer as well. (P. Singer) Should animals hence be allowed to vote? Ofcourse not.