Justice

Yeah. It was from the editor of a magazine who joined the military. He was a close buddy of Moore, if I remember correctly.

Eh, it's not a rip at you as it is at NoCal. No one wants to go into combat. It's not pleasant. Showing us that a third tried to get exemptions and delays before going back shows nothing, really, since I wouldn't doubt that, with today's people, it would be similar for any war if not worse.

And this proves what? I think I'm missing the point of the argument here. No one wants to be sent into a warzone; it's only natural that some of them would want to get out of it. Honestly, if it were our generation fighting WWII, I bet a good half wouldn't have shown up. That doesn't indicate anything of how just the war is or how good it's going.

I don't think it's that the letters are fake. It's just that, well, 9 people out of 140,000 doesn't give us an accurate sentiment of the troops over there. Especially ones who want to send letters to Michael Moore. I would, though, like to see their authenticity proven. I wouldn't put it past Moore to make up a few of them. So it's just an assumption then. Ok, you don't trust Moore. Fine. It doesn't mean its ONLY 9. Thats an assumption too. There ARE alot of people who are against this war, world over. IS it so hard to imagine that some of them might be IN the military? Of course not. We'd solve this by getting some kind of poll, but from the military? Good luck. I've talked to service men. I know service men. My friends know service men. NONE of them talk of anything like those letters mentioned. The way they were written, they seem questionable. There is so much of those letters that seems to be filled with propaganda, that it's way too convient to Moore's position. Do you have any proof that these letters are the rule and not the exception? Seriously, do you? Because, frankly, if the troops were THAT against it, you'd think that the media would be ALL over that story...

So 9 letters out of 140,000 obviously are an accurate judge of the whole. Thank you very much. Anyone can make a point. It's not that hard. But putting something behind that point is what really matters. Just because he has a few letters means shit; you need more than a hundred disgruntled GIs to really get noticed. We are talking 140,000 people here (I'm hammering this point down. That's around .07 of a percent of the entire force in Iraq. Frankly, I doubt that they are the true indicator of what's really going over there. And it'd be funny if he did get reemed out by a judge for bribery of voters. I'd laugh my ass off at that.

I don't think it's that the letters are fake. It's just that, well, 9 people out of 140,000 doesn't give us an accurate sentiment of the troops over there. Especially ones who want to send letters to Michael Moore. I would, though, like to see their authenticity proven. I wouldn't put it past Moore to make up a few of them.

You know that something like 30,000 Iraqi Civilians died in the First Gulf War, right? Or are you just an idiot? What has the number of Iraqi civilians we killed in the first Gulf War have to do with the amount that we have killed in this "war" (I use the word loosely) thus far? I don't get why you are calling me an idiot..you're not making any sense...?! Idiot! Because that was a fucking month long operation. This has gone on for 2+ years. We aren't even half-way yet (Even Iraqi Bodycount only recognizes that a little over 15,000 as the max number possible, with a minimum around 13,000) to that. For an operation that's a 'quagmire', we are doing pretty damn good for ourselves when it comes to our own casualties and civilian casualties.

... No offense to any Brits or foreigners around because this is specifically aimed at INXS, but it's obvious that not being in the country has seriously hindered your understanding of American politics. You are an idiot. Goodbye.

So, wait... Who is in over their head in this argument? And I do have to say that the "Daughter" comment is below the belt. It was completely unwarrented. It had no point other than to try and get a reaction from Cheney (Which it failed miserably at). I can't believe you'd defend that sort of low blow.

Perhaps we could photoshop Kerry's head over Dukakis and just run the Tank commercial again. I like him better dressed like Willy Wonka introducing Wonkavision myself. Put him in the tank like that and it's perfection. Oh, Jesus, we could definitely do a "Magical World of Kerry" commercial with his Iraq views. "The Magical World of John Kerry: Where you can be on both sides of the issue at once!"

Perhaps we could photoshop Kerry's head over Dukakis and just run the Tank commercial again.

Question, did you actually read my link? It's from one of the most unbiased political sites on the web, don'tcha know.

Kerry didn't send these kids to a war based on a lie. Yeah, he did. He gave the President the power based on the same info that Bush was given. He, along with John Edwards, gave Bush the power to fight this war. If anything, Congress is just as responsible for Bush for not seeing through the 'faulty info'. Of course, that's if you believe it was a mistake. I mean, if it is truly based on the 'Was he a threat to us' test, Kerry put it best: Seriously, how much more is there to this? And, to be frank, a lot of these 'kids' are older than you. They are adults and understand the consequences of joining the military. Seriously, to try and cast them as children not capable of making an intelligent decision on their own future is pretty sad.

Uh, that's not exactly true, kid. Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature at which Michael Moore's Pants Burn. He distorts facts so much that they literally lack any truth behind them any more. That's all really does. Frankly, you should check out a few more of those, especially the ones on his books and Bowling for Columbine.

Is there any actual proof that the majority of Iraqis don't want a democracy? Is there any sort of poll or something that backs this up? An insurgency proves nothing; that just means you have people that don't like the new government, it doesn't mean they are a majority. Is there proof that a majority of Iraqis don't want democracy?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261

So... out of 140,000 troops, Michael Moore managed to get a hundred or so little letters? *shrugs* Seriously, I don't see any sort of trend or point to this. 9 letters don't prove anything besides there are 9 guys who don't want to be there. I'm waiting for Cerberus to nail you for this; he's ex-Navy and has a ton of buddies over there who tell him differently. Of course, Michael Moore is a bastion of honesty, right? ... Right?

what are you talking about? Me and 2Cold quite abruptly, said Cheney won without qualms, and we are two of the more liberal folks on here. Eh, 2Gold is a bit more moderate. But the point is taken. I think it's aimed more at NYU and a few others. And hell, where is TheLastBoyScout?!

I think "Headmaster of Spin" is one subtitle for the chairmen of both parties. You gotta put a positive face on a situation no matter what. Even if it may seem delusional. Clearly, Edwards is ignoring Cheney in this picture Why the fuck are they sitting me next to some pissant junior Senator. God damn, I'm gonna have the planner's head for this one...

That's a piss-poor argument. In a military engagement, people die. That's what happens in reality. If you can't understand that, you are a child. Just because people die in a military engagement doesn't mean that 'we are sending them over there to die', or that it's a 'quagmire'. These things happen. But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East. Yes, yes we should. We should have finished it back in 1990, but we didn't. Iraq has always been a threat, and we had to take care of it, especially in today's day and age.

It's not as though these kids are impressed into the Service. You join the service with the knowledge that you might go into hostile places and, sadly, die in combat. But if you don't realize this might happen beforehand, well... you are as dumb as INXS ("Where's my opt-out clause?"). Seriously, "Sending them over there to die"? Shut the hell up! You are the people that get everyone angry. No one is sending people over to Iraq to fucking die. We are sending them over there to stablize the country so we can have an Arab Democracy in the Middle East. As though they are going into a meat grinder like WWII was. I never had any respect for Rangel before, and I definitely haven't changed my opinion of him. He's still the stupid bastard I remember him as.

Hm... I dunno, anyone remember something called the Marshall Plan? I could have sworn it involved rebuilding France or something. Oh well. I guess a statue is obviously so much better than, well, being saved from occupation twice and having your country rebuilt twice.

Jeez, perhaps we should also adopt the Clinton Terrorist policy. Oh wait, we saw how that worked out. Seriously, your own candidate says Saddam was a threat. Please, if he was a threat, explain to me why we should have left him alone? And, oddly enough, I doubt that Cheney and Bush I thought that Saddam would still be in power 10 years later.

You know that something like 30,000 Iraqi Civilians died in the First Gulf War, right? Or are you just an idiot? NoCal: Not a threat? Wait, what does John Kerry have to say about this...

Do you want him to give you exact amounts or something...? ... ... Did you read ANYTHING that Tom just wrote? I mean, seriously, Bush brought better content sadly enough. Kerry brought "And if you want to know more, go to JohnKerry.com! *Wink*" This is seriously sad.