Michael Moore: "If Lieberman and McCain say this is a good idea, then what could possibly go wrong?"

[somone]

http://twitter.com/mmflint

Aren't most revolutions won when the ppl themselves win them? Rare that it works otherwise. U can send them stuff, but it's their fight.

FLASH! The rich have decided 2 up their own tax rate by 50% 2 pay 4 this war. I knew they'd come thru if we just kept bombing places

May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?

If Joe Lieberman and John McCain say this is a good idea, then what could possibly go wrong?

[Azathoth]

1. Mike must be hitting the Jack Daniels early today. Half of his latest tweets are incoherent.

And the other half are reminiscent of the kind of sneering ignorance you usually hear on talk radio.

[VoteProgressive]

2. you left off sarcasm tag!

[SolutionisSolidarity]

4. You must be a non-native English speaker. Don't worry - I'll help you learn.

No thanks are necessary, we all have to look at for each other after all.

Tweet 1:
"Aren't most revolutions won when the ppl themselves win them? Rare that it works otherwise. U can send them stuff, but it's their fight."

Translation: This is a Libyan civil war. It should be won or lost by Libyan factions, not outside powers. It's one thing to send them materials and support, another thing entirely to enter the conflict on their behalf.

Tweet 2:
"FLASH! The rich have decided 2 up their own tax rate by 50% 2 pay 4 this war. I knew they'd come thru if we just kept bombing places"

Translation: Rich America has announced that they no longer plan to pay any taxes for the governing on the country. Although we are already locked into multiple wars, we are starting new ones. Moore facetiously suggests that rich people should volunteer to increase their own tax rate drastically to pay for our empire, since they want it so bad.

Tweet 3:
May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?

Translation: Obama's receiving of a Nobel Peace Prize has proven to be undeserved. Obama is not, nor does he want to be, a man of peace.

Tweet 4:
If Joe Lieberman and John McCain say this is a good idea, then what could possibly go wrong?

Translation: America's most prominent military expansionists, Joe Lieberman and John McCain, fully support this war. Their recent history includes supporting conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that were deemed to be both unnecessary and unwise by most observers afterward. We should not be following their advice on Libya.

There, glad I could help. Have a great day!

[Azathoth]

15. Then perhaps Twitter isn't the proper forum for substantive discussion of a complex situation

Tweet 1: Like most talk-radio-style "arguments", this is ahistorical and ignorant on multiple levels. Moore really needs to read a little about the American Revolution (hint: there were French there too!)

Tweet 2: The rich are greedy and suck ass. No argument there.

Tweet 3: Apparently an attempt at "ironic humor". Of course, in his quest to be comedian of the year, Moore accidently trips over the carpet and bangs his chin on the table when he manages to imply that the Nobel Peace Prize should only be awarded to leaders who sit on their hands and look the other way as thousands of civilians are massacred. By his logic, Clinton should have won the Peace Prize for his wonderful handling of Rwanda.

Tweet 4: Grown-ups do not base their opinions on what others think. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean vegetarianism is wrong?

Some of Moore's other tweets are even more imbecilic.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Oh? So now Duers don't like Farhenheit 911 / Sicko Michael Moore?

Wow....those are some mighty powers BO has! If ANYONE says ANYTHING negative about wars, BO, MIC they're automatically an alcoholic, support genocide and are against humanitarian aid. This is quite interesting what is going on on this site.

[Azathoth]

17. Moore says stupid things, Moore gets criticized. Surely you of all people know how that works.

:hi:

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Oh, I'm crushed.

You insulted me. :cry:

[City Lights]

13. Good to know you're following his every tweet.

:rofl:

[Azathoth]

16. Uh, the OP contained a link to his Twitter page

Duh, winning :rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

3. While I find that logic to not be dismissed out of hand, it isn't deep thought either.

It is a dangerous way to process complex issues and especially a weak case on why we should have used our Security Council veto to attempt to stop the action or at least force other nations to go at it without the UN.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

5. Have you ever used twitter - you get 144 characters.

How deep can he get?

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. It's a TWEET, fercryingoutloud. Hardly the forum for an elaborate literary masterpiece. n/t

[qazplm]

6. Ours wasn't

no French help likely we don't win.

[LAGC]

7. I see no problem with arming the Libyan rebels.

But why launch missiles/bombs all over the place, which is only going to needlessly kill more civilians through collateral damage?

[qazplm]

8. there is no war

that will ever happen without collateral damage. If you don't want collateral damage at all, then no wars ever again.

Now we can all agree that's ideal, but it isn't reality unless human nature 2.0 gets a boot.

So then the question is, how much is it worth it, are we the ones doing it or is someone else, and would it be worse if we didn't get involved.

I don't know the answers to those questions, but depending on how you think it works out, then guided munitions may be worthwhile. We are generally targeting military sites, this isn't bombs dropping on a group of people who may be terrorists or may be a wedding or someone's house we think is a terrorist like in Afghanistan/Pakistan, this is dropping bombs on actual identified military assets.

I think the risk thus is much lower than what we are doing in other places.

And on edit, if you see no problem with arming the rebels then you are just removing the danger one layer, aren't we still "responsible" for any collateral damage from weapons we give to the rebels, who I'm pretty sure aren't engaging in law of war targeting analysis.

[LAGC]

14. Libyan media already reporting dozens of civilians killed by U.S. missile strikes.

I just think ground forces would be better able to target only military targets and minimize civilian casualties versus missiles/bombs that have a wide berth.

The Libyan rebels should be fighting this war, not foreign powers from above.

[qazplm]

21. I'd be a little more

believing of media that isn't state controlled and part of the side we are currently bombing.

Regardless, how many civilians do you think would be killed if we just armed the rebels? How many civilians would be killed if we did nothing?

The idea that if we do nothing then no civilians gets killed, thus if we kill any civilians doing something it's automatically wrong is flawed.

[Ikonoklast]

19. No 'likely' about it.

Let's see, the French gaves us loans, outright monetary grants, war materiel, men, officers, intelligence...well, it's a fairly long list.

Without 'foreign intervention' in our own Revolution, Michael Moore would be tweeting about how much he despises the Queen of our nation.

[bvar22]

10. The only problem I have with MM....

...is that he makes me laugh.
The Issues here are deadly serious,
and I would like to keep my seriously Anti-Stupid War face on.

"If Joe Lieberman and John McCain say this is a good idea, then what could possibly go wrong?":shrug:
LOL

[aquart]

11. Finally, a sensible argument against intervention.

And I ain't kidding.

[snot]

18. Ha ha! Got that right.