Heavy fighting in South Ossetia.

[GregBurch]

I think that friendly fire might be linked to the intake of "Go-Pills" like Dexedrine. Or in other words: to amphetamine intake generally because the use of drugs by American pilots and soldiers is an open secret.

I also get the impression that a lot of US soliders are too young and less educated to be send into war. That in combination with amphetamine intake can turn innocent young people into killer-machines. There seem to be a lot of morons within the US army. Just watch "Farenheit 9/11 Part 8 of 12" on Youtube. I don't really want to post the link here. And no, this certainly is not just made by Michael Moore. There are enough videos (even more perversely as Farenheit 9/11) uploaded to the web by US soldiers.

Thanks, that pretty well clears it all up for me. When you start by citing Michael Moore, you've already lost all credibility. That saved me the trouble of lifting a finger to refute such idiocy.

 

[Urwumpe]

Thanks, that pretty well clears it all up for me. When you start by citing Michael Moore, you've already lost all credibility. That saved me the trouble of lifting a finger to refute such idiocy.

Also a form of ad hominem argument.

 

[Native Son]

I think that friendly fire might be linked to the intake of "Go-Pills" like Dexedrine. Or in other words: to amphetamine intake generally because the use of drugs by American pilots and soldiers is an open secret.

I also get the impression that a lot of US soliders are too young and less educated to be send into war. That in combination with amphetamine intake can turn innocent young people into killer-machines. There seem to be a lot of morons within the US army. Just watch "Farenheit 9/11 Part 8 of 12" on Youtube. I don't really want to post the link here. And no, this certainly is not just made by Michael Moore. There are enough videos (even more perversely as Farenheit 9/11) uploaded to the web by US soldiers.

What?

Anyway, there are much worse videos not put on YouTube....

 

[GregBurch]

Also a form of ad hominem argument.

Below a certain level, it shouldn't be necessary to do more than point out the worthlessness of a source to which someone points to demonstrate a complete lack of credibility. If we were discussing Israel, and someone relied on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, all I should have to do is point out that the person in question, by doing so, has lost all credibility, wouldn't you agree? At that point, both the argument, and the person who has cited such garbage, has exposed themselves for what they are.

But for those who may be in doubt:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

 

[Urwumpe]

No, I don't agree. What if Michael Moore says something right among all the stuff he does wrong - is this right thing now also wrong?

What would you do as lawyer, when somebody denounces all your argumentations on the base of the person you are? Would you accept it?

If somebody bases his argumentations on Israel on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it would be far wiser to be able to tell, what is wrong with it. Attack the argument, not the person.

Also, IMHO the worst problems with Fahrenheit 9/11 are

1. It tries to influence you in a very visible way. All movies do that, but not all movies do it in such a noticeable way.
2. It mentions some painful truths. The arguments in the movie are of course never balanced in favor for a neutral presentation - but they are also not all wrong... the majority actually seems to be right.

On the same base you use, I could attack the homepages you cite. The first I clicked (davekopel.com) did not even make the effort to deliver references to check the arguments itself. Actually, it was countering even the limited existing evidence. For what?

Are they now because of that, unworthy of being used in a discussion? If we only allow arguments by personal preference, we have a nice republican wonderland.

 

[Andy44]

Merely mentioning Moore's name automatically turns off a significant percentage of your readers to your argument. Moore's name is poison to any argument. If in fact Moore says something correct, better to cite the source yourself than to cite Moore.

 

[GregBurch]

1. It tries to influence you in a very visible way. All movies do that, but not all movies do it in such a noticeable way.
2. It mentions some painful truths. The arguments in the movie are of course never balanced in favor for a neutral presentation - but they are also not all wrong... the majority actually seems to be right.

This is my second attempt to draft a reply. I deleted the first because it was written in extreme anger. Let's see if I can harness that anger a little:

Michael Moore has spent his entire life insulting just about everything I value with outrageous lies. This has won him quite a fan base, not least in Europe. This makes me sick. He has so debased the political discourse, that I honestly think he may be a sign that this particular version of this particular civilization has surpassed its "use-by" date.

There was a time when I thought that unmasking the lies Moore propagates would do some good, because it would show what's really going on with this kind of propaganda. But it doesn't work. The mainstream of political discourse has been stripped of all moral content (see the discussion above about the UN for a perfect example) to such an extent that by and large, what passes for "political discussion" is just one group of chimps braying and flinging feces at another group of braying chimps flinging feces back.

The swamp of moral relativism rises ever higher. The last thing to be covered by the slime will be Michael Moore's fat grinning face.

 

[Xantcha]

About weak american army: that's just weird stuff. May be from historical POV it doesn't loo like much - it's no mongols, sure . But for modern regular army it is very impressive to say the least.

2 Urwumpe:

I personally have no problem with anything that does not immediatly affect me, also I can't tell what rest of my nation thinks.
About having a NATO member at south borders - that would not be a problem only if Russia is member of NATO

And difference between south and north is simple - there is fewer georgians up there in north. Those two tribes hate each other like poision. And ossetians can be easily wiped out in case of full scale tribal war - a good reason to want autonomy. Not very good to actualy get one

That argument about religions - I just don't get it - what's that was about? Are muslims unworthy of existence or something?

2 Everyone: I'm curious how PR warfare goes - who is aggressor in this war? What does your media says? Also - how media covereage started?

 

[Eagle]

2 Everyone: I'm curious how PR warfare goes - who is aggressor in this war? What does your media says? Also - how media covereage started?

Coverage isn't that great. The media is mostly focused upon Russian Troop buildups and direct combat between Russian and Georgian Forces. The sensation the media is focused on is the escalation.

I would say the Russians are being cast as invaders. Very little attention is given to underlying reasons of the conflict.

Its rather hard to be sure what the truth is from this position.

 

[Urwumpe]

And difference between south and north is simple - there is fewer georgians up there in north. Those two tribes hate each other like poision. And ossetians can be easily wiped out in case of full scale tribal war - a good reason to want autonomy. Not very good to actualy get one

I think, it would not even be fair if a full Ossetian republic would be created by having Russia and Georgia giving territory away for it. After all, it is not really about autonomy in the region. It is about becoming Russians. I doubt the well-paid rebel leaders in South Ossetia plan having full autonomy, they just plan getting rid of the Georgian minority in their territory.

That argument about religions - I just don't get it - what's that was about? Are muslims unworthy of existence or something?

No, it is more about showing some important boundaries: The front lines do not only go through tribal barriers, but also religious.

Also it shows pretty well the hypocritical behavior of Russia - a similar separatist movement in Chechnya got bombed to the stone age, as it hindered Russian interests (=takes important resources away). And it got supported with large amounts of money and political support when it suits Russias interests (=allows taking important resources away from others), in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Adjara (all regions with dominant Iranian cultures).

2 Everyone: I'm curious how PR warfare goes - who is aggressor in this war? What does your media says? Also - how media covereage started?

Currently, the consensus is that both sides escalated the situation with many small steps to a point, where the annual shooting spree of Ossetian freedom fighters (=armed drunken teenagers with lack of a proper hobby) triggered this war.

 

[Xantcha]

I see, it is 'somehow it's all out violence and russia is involved'. Thanks for the info.

Ok, lets wait for more war and body counts Could be intersting to see how certain hardware works - planes got shot on both sides

2 Urwumpe: what do you mean? most of ossetians are orthodox.
Besides ossetians and georgians don't really need any religious motivation to hate each other - not long there was a news where Putin was meeting ossetian refugees. One particular women said that she is gratefull for russian support and that 'as long as we have a single woman we will fight' and that 'she will raise her children to avenge'. Thats as tribal as it can get :-/

 

[Eagle]

One particular women that she is gratefull for russian support and that 'as long as we have a single woman we will fight' and that 'she will raise her children to avenge'. Thats as tribal as it can get :-/

Whatever happened to Forgive and Forget?

Or as the great Denzel Washington said: "I don't know what the beef is between you, but you'd better grill it and eat it."

**sigh**

 

[Urwumpe]

2 Urwumpe: what do you mean? most of ossetians are orthodox.

In North-Ossetia-Aslan, yes, there only 30% are Muslim, but in South Ossetia, the ratio is more around 60%. The original Ossetians are a Muslim Iranian tribe.

Besides ossetians and georgians don't really need any religious motivation to hate each other - not long there was a news where Putin was meeting ossetian refugees. One particular women said that she is gratefull for russian support and that 'as long as we have a single woman we will fight' and that 'she will raise her children to avenge'. Thats as tribal as it can get :-/

That is not tribal anymore, that is brain-dead. Who cares about the mothers who just want their children to grow up intact.

I wonder what Russia likes on helping the Ossetians. After all, they once gave Russia Josef Stalin. :dry:

 

[Moonwalker]

The strange behaviour, the amphetamine intake and the shoot-horniness of some US soldiers and their friendly fire is well known and has nothing to do with Michael Moore. Farenheit 9/11 just is a public movie out of many private videos in the web uploaded by US solders. They partly present themself on the web as a bunch of morons even worse than seen in 9/11 and other movies. Some seem to feel like being in holiday or playing a 3D shooter. I feel very sorry for those young poor guys, misused like trained dogs by the US government for its dirty beef in the Middle East...

Talking about Michael Moore is like looking away. Looking at US soldiers, politicians and what they say and so think is very important rather than subjective opinions about Michael Moore. "We have to bring the ideal of democracy and freedom to the country (Iraq)". No, the USA doesn't have to do such things at all. This scares me beside a lot of other things. It is not the business of the USA to spread their ideals onto the whole planet, less than ever by aggressive wars while ignoring different cultures and religions. In fact they are stupid intruders and warmongers rather than peacemaker. But it's something which doesn't belong to this thread at all.

 

[legios]

friendly fire

Friendly fire is not caused by drugs, or anything else. It is simply the by-product of war. It has happened in every war, but compared to civillian and military deaths, friendly fire was significant. One of the drawbacks of these one sided wars the US has fought has been the fact that a higher proportion of friendly casualties are being caused by friendly fire.

We have great weapons...and we can see almost everything in the battlefield. It is really hard to hide in modern combat. Unfortunately, it is incredibly hard to tell who's who. Add in the fact that combat lines are rapidly moving and that units such as spec forces can be well in advance of the battle line, then you add even more fog into the equation.

Another problem is that weapons are so fast now, that the reaction time is drastically shorter. Is that an aircraft releasing a missile and turning away? Or is it two friendly aircraft splitting up on their way home? You have 3 seconds to figure it out or else your Patriot battery will not be able to defend your AOR.

Is that a friendly unit advancing on your left? Or are you so far forward of the main advance, that you are seeing an enemy unit falling back to a better position? Oh yeah, you're being shot at by artillery and small arms right now, so you better figure it out quick. Somebody please pull out their flashlight so we can look at the map.

If you could hear how much radio comms it takes to drop just one bomb, you'd be amazed. I've personally been to joint tactical meetings where the whole topic of discussion was how can we make it easier for people to drop bombs. Pilots nowadays are coming back with most of their weapons. They are simply afraid to drop.

I personally like Michael Moore's movies. They are pretty far left, but the govt is really far right. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. However, the insinuation that US forces are morons who are trigger happy, is personally very insulting. No soldier, sailor, or airman has ever taken lightly the idea that they are able to kill their fellow countryman or ally. It is a grim reality that we all live with and do our utmost to avoid.

 

[Native Son]

Georgia pulls out. Thank goodness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552012.stm

 

[Tex]

*cough*cough*

I think many nations in the old world can claim to be far more effective. Even the French troops defeat US troops on a regular base in maneuvers, far more to claim that the US troops just allow the French to defeat them as act of sympathy.

Google I'm Feeling Lucky -- "French Military Victories"

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

:rofl:

 

[Linguofreak]

That one is as old as the hills. And the funny thing is how it manages to not quite be false while still not being quite true either.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I think this satire is better:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

:speakcool:

 

[Notebook]

BBC Moscow correspondent is saying Interfax reports the Russian Black Sea the Fleet to blockade Georgia.

Also, the Russians are saying the Georgian forces have not completed their 'withdrawal'.

Remarkably, Stalin's statue in Gori hasn't been damaged.
N.