Michael Moore = Douchebag

[DC Tom]

 

Jeez, he can't even copy and paste schitt properly.

 

Credit where due: when he pulls his head out of his ass, he actually does know a bit about military history.

 

Not nearly as much as he thinks he does, though. He's not even close to my league.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Credit where due: when he pulls his head out of his ass, he actually does know a bit about military history.

 

Not nearly as much as he thinks he does, though. He's not even close to my league.

He's the WPGA to your WLAF.

[OCinBuffalo]

You can go back further than that. No doubt the French nobility felt the same about English longbows at Crechy and Agincourt. Certainly the ancient Greeks felt that way about archery.

 

 

There was a lot of that mentality in the 18th and 19th century. And, from the perspective of those centuries it makes sense. I worked with a stunt guy here who is an edge weapon expert (the kind of guy who choreographs sword fights and the like) and he still feels that way despite serving 20 years in the Marines.

It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't now. Yeah the French can cry "Bon Chance" all they want about riding horses up a muddy hill and getting mowed down by arrows. Why did they send the 2nd wave once they understood the ground? How about the 5th? Because they were prideful idiots, and they got what they deserved: they lost.

 

There has always been a philosophy, from many parts of the world, that states that war would be less likely if all its participants, especially the leaders who initiate it or generals to carry it out, were forced to fight in melee(edged) combat. Essentially hearing, seeing, smelling, someone else dying by your hand...would be an aversion...and therefore less people would want to participate, especially leaders, as they have the most to lose. Being POTUS one day, and getting disemboweled on live TV the next, is quite a swing, and might make you think twice...so goes the thinking.

 

This is utter crap, and is a result of an aversion to reading/understanding military history, and history in general. Shaka Zulu proved that the exact opposite is true, and for them, war wasn't war until he trained his men to attack in melee. Frederick Barbarossa, who likely represented the end of Islam as we know it today, tells us what happens when an army loses its leader carelessly. Stonewall Jackson, same story. Gettysburg turns out differently if he is in command there and not Ewell.

 

If we go back to the very beginning, before edged weapons, before the spear even, was some guy a coward because he picked up a rock, and hit somebody with it, instead of just using his fist? What about the guy who invented the spear, and realized he could do damage from a distance, before his enemy could? What about the guy who invented the first edged weapon, and shield, which could parry the spear and break into spear formations, hence the original incarnation of "shock troops"? Where does the spear guy get off calling the edged weapon guy a coward? Is he, or is he merely an innovator?

 

Neither. It was about winning. War is always and only about winning. We get into big trouble every time we start talking about glory, and rules, and honorable weapons, and honorable deaths, and avenging this or that, or civilian casualties or anything that isn't: winning. Any concern or distraction from flat out winning always causes more problems, especially civilian deaths, than it solves. The Civil War prisoner exchanges before Grant took over closes the book on the argument: the fact is they prolonged the war, and more people, both soldiers and civilians, died as a result. Grant kept his prisoners, destroyed the South's will to fight, and the ability to fight, by ordering total war: ransacking civilian homes and killing whoever resisted = war over.

 

IF we have to fight a war, total war is the most moral way. I know that sounds strange, and the weak don't want to hear that....because they are who they are. But the object of a war is to force surrender. The faster you do it, the less people die. Their is nothing more honorable, or moral, than ensuring less people die.

 

The weapons used to ensure that? Irrelevant. What is the real difference between a sniper and an officer who calls in artillery coordinates? None.

 

Would things be any different if Michael Moore's uncle was killed by artillery called in by a German officer? No. He'd still be dead. It's a bit demented, and disrespectful of his dead uncle, to be talking about any of this in the context of a movie. The uncle died for his country, and in doing so, helped to win a war. That's it.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2015/01/michael-moore-lists-ways-hes-helped-veterans-continues-defend-coward-comments-about-

 

Michael Moore is so brave. Those putting their lives on the line for their country, cowards. The man behind the video camera? You da real hero. Thank you Mr. Moore, for your service.

[DC Tom]

 

Neither. It was about winning. War is always and only about winning. We get into big trouble every time we start talking about glory, and rules, and honorable weapons, and honorable deaths, and avenging this or that, or civilian casualties or anything that isn't: winning. Any concern or distraction from flat out winning always causes more problems, especially civilian deaths, than it solves. The Civil War prisoner exchanges before Grant took over closes the book on the argument: the fact is they prolonged the war, and more people, both soldiers and civilians, died as a result. Grant kept his prisoners, destroyed the South's will to fight, and the ability to fight, by ordering total war: ransacking civilian homes and killing whoever resisted = war over.

 

No, for most of history war was about proving you were the better warrior, which involved proving you embodied a warrior ethos, which did not include ranged weapons. In the first western historical document of ANY sort (stretching the definition of "history," admittedly), Paris is the cowardly archer who kills the bravest Greek warrior, Achilles.

[Tiberius]

This is...surprisingly accurate.

 

Only thing you got wrong was comparing bayonets to phalanges. The phalanx was an offensive formation, using spears (or sarissa). Bayonets supplemented, then replaced, pike formations, which were largely defensive formations.

 

And that doesn't change the contempt in which they were held...but that contempt stems directly from the contempt archers were held in.

No, I didn't get it wrong. Phalanx was both an offensive and defensive formation. The Greeks at Thermopylae or even Harold's failed defense against William the Bastard are examples of phalaxnx or phalanx like formations used in defense. The point I was making though is that the massing of soldiers still survived into the musket age.

 

The bayonet was an offensive weapon in many occasions, such as on the Plains of Abraham where the British fired their volley and charged. The British red coats were trained to fire and then advance to the attack, that's why the untrained colonial militia were terrified of them and broke and ran many times. True, they didn't actually get to fighting quarters often like that, but that's because the other side fled usually. By the Civil War the bayonet was hardly used as a weapon.

 

You are right that there was an evolution through the pike which was defensive to protect an army's flank, usually against cavalry in the early modern period

[DC Tom]

No, I didn't get it wrong. Phalanx was both an offensive and defensive formation. The Greeks at Thermopylae or even Harold's failed defense against William the Bastard are examples of phalaxnx or phalanx like formations used in defense. The point I was making though is that the massing of soldiers still survived into the musket age.

 

The bayonet was an offensive weapon in many occasions, such as on the Plains of Abraham where the British fired their volley and charged. The British red coats were trained to fire and then advance to the attack, that's why the untrained colonial militia were terrified of them and broke and ran many times. True, they didn't actually get to fighting quarters often like that, but that's because the other side fled usually. By the Civil War the bayonet was hardly used as a weapon.

 

You are right that there was an evolution through the pike which was defensive to protect an army's flank, usually against cavalry in the early modern period

 

Aaaaand...you're back to being an idiot.

[Tiberius]

 

Aaaaand...you're back to being an idiot.

And Tom crumbles.....as usual

 

 

Dev//Null.....someone needs a hug!

[OCinBuffalo]

 

No, for most of history war was about proving you were the better warrior, which involved proving you embodied a warrior ethos, which did not include ranged weapons. In the first western historical document of ANY sort (stretching the definition of "history," admittedly), Paris is the cowardly archer who kills the bravest Greek warrior, Achilles.

Yes, and all during the middle age Italian Mercenaries, and Italian warfare in general was all about this. One v one melee combat.

 

Until the King of France came down and...won...with cannon. I would venture to guess that the Neopolitan soldiers who were being torn to pieces weren't thinking about proving who the better warrior was. I'm sure the last thing they were thinking was "F, there goes my leg/head/arm"

 

I'm not talking about the state of mind Paris, or Achilles. I'm talking about winning. Paris won. The rest only matters to people like Joe Buck, You think Hector cared about being dragged behind a chariot? No. He was dead, because he lost. He might have cared before he lost, but he couldn't care after.

 

And, there's stll no difference between a sniper and me calling in artillery. I'm in no danger, the sniper is no danger when we take our shot, both of us are observing the enemy from a long way off, and in both cases the enemy has no idea we are there. IF a sniper is a coward, then so is every single person who has ever called in indirect fire from concealment.

 

I'd like to see Moore call all of us cowards.

Edited January 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

No, I didn't get it wrong. Phalanx was both an offensive and defensive formation. The Greeks at Thermopylae or even Harold's failed defense against William the Bastard are examples of phalaxnx or phalanx like formations used in defense. The point I was making though is that the massing of soldiers still survived into the musket age.

 

The bayonet was an offensive weapon in many occasions, such as on the Plains of Abraham where the British fired their volley and charged. The British red coats were trained to fire and then advance to the attack, that's why the untrained colonial militia were terrified of them and broke and ran many times. True, they didn't actually get to fighting quarters often like that, but that's because the other side fled usually. By the Civil War the bayonet was hardly used as a weapon.

 

You are right that there was an evolution through the pike which was defensive to protect an army's flank, usually against cavalry in the early modern period

Rather than just call you an idiot, I will attempt to show some of your error.

 

I believe there are more than a few people who would scoff at the bolded.

 

Little Round Top, The Crater are just a few places there the bayonet comes to mind. And, of course, Stonewall Jackson's entire tactical playbook. Not only were bayonets used extensively, near the end, when common sense overtook "honor", and entrenchment/"digging in" became common, there were all sorts of brass knuckle type weapns that were used for close quarters combat to supplement the bayonet.

 

And, it seems you have little understanding of WW1...because the same thing happened there as well.

Edited January 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Tiberius]

Rather than just call you an idiot, I will attempt to show some of your error.

 

I believe there are more than a few people who would scoff at the bolded.

 

Little Round Top, The Crater are just a few places there the bayonet comes to mind. And, of course, Stonewall Jackson's entire tactical playbook. Not only were bayonets used extensively, near the end, when common sense overtook "honor", and entrenchment/"digging in" became common, there were all sorts of brass knuckle type weapns that were used for close quarters combat to supplement the bayonet.

 

And, it seems you have little understanding of WW1...because the same thing happened there as well.

That? The Little Round Top? How many wounds and deaths did that create compared to the rest of the battle? Just STFU already, you know nothing.

 

Oh, was the bayonet a big player in WW1? Wow!

[Wacka]

Looks like Gatorman ha a flowers for Algernon moment (for about 30 seconds).

[DC Tom]

Yes, and all during the middle age Italian Mercenaries, and Italian warfare in general was all about this. One v one melee combat.

 

Until the King of France came down and...won...with cannon. I would venture to guess that the Neopolitan soldiers who were being torn to pieces weren't thinking about proving who the better warrior was. I'm sure the last thing they were thinking was "F, there goes my leg/head/arm"

 

Yes...but now you're starting to get to era of the development of the mass army, as opposed to the smaller, professional mercenary army. And that's exactly when that warrior ethos starts to diminish - when you start having regular schmoes recruited, drafted, or cajoled into the military without any investment in the "warrior code."

 

I'm not talking about the state of mind Paris, or Achilles. I'm talking about winning. Paris won. The rest only matters to people like Joe Buck, You think Hector cared about being dragged behind a chariot? No. He was dead, because he lost. He might have cared before he lost, but he couldn't care after.

 

Well, I am. And I'm also talking about the perception of "warriors" throughout history. And using the Iliad to illustrate the point that it's not just a bias, but a truly foundational principle in western thought that the people who stand back and shoot from cover are cowards. Yes, Paris won. He was also vilified for it, because that's honestly not what "warriors" fought for.

 

 

And, there's stll no difference between a sniper and me calling in artillery. I'm in no danger, the sniper is no danger when we take our shot, both of us are observing the enemy from a long way off, and in both cases the enemy has no idea we are there. IF a sniper is a coward, then so is every single person who has ever called in indirect fire from concealment.

 

 

There's a HUGE difference between a sniper and artillery: A sniper kills on an individual, specific basis, artillery kills on a more general, random basis. A sniper targets people, artillery targets places or things. Basically, a sniper's personal, artillery's impersonal. The very day you call in a fire mission against "the tall lieutenant colonel on the left with the bushy eyebrows" instead of a map coordinate, you can tell me differently.

 

I'll just leave you and gatorman to this discussion. You both seem to be at roughly the same level of ignorance.

[DC Tom]

That? The Little Round Top? How many wounds and deaths did that create compared to the rest of the battle? Just STFU already, you know nothing.

 

A bayonet charge won the second day (arguably the entire battle). Joshua Chamberlain, look him up.

 

And Thomas Jackson's tactical instructions to his troops, at every level he commanded, in every battle from First Bull Run to Chancellorsville, were "one shot, then charge with bayonets."

[OCinBuffalo]

That? The Little Round Top? How many wounds and deaths did that create compared to the rest of the battle? Just STFU already, you know nothing.

 

Oh, was the bayonet a big player in WW1? Wow!

Little Round Top is known, even to the dumbass that watches the movie, for the bayonet charge ordered by Chamberlain. It was one of the best decisions made by any officer in the entire history of the US Army, and is studied as such at West Point. Where, I was 1 of 10 cadets in my entire class to be selected for Advanced History, otherwise known as "The General's class". Thus, your Federal Diety disagrees with your assessment, as I was part of a very elite handful, picked out of an entire class of already elite people, and I sat in the first chair.

 

I know more about history than you will ever know, not because you can't do the reading, but because you can't comprehend the reading. You simply don't possess the analytical ability, as you have demonstrated here, over and over.

 

Funny....all the WW1 footage, all the battle histories that described charging into the trench with the bayonet first, and then switching to hand spikes, shovels, canteens, whatever was available...because you can't fire and reload a bolt-action rifle when the enemy is 1 foot away from you...yeah none of that is real. And, while we are at it, the bayonet played no significant role in the thinking of the Japanese WW2 soldier at all.

 

I mean, an entire culture that reveres the sword, and suddenly you give each pissant rice farmer a chance to be the first in his family, for probably 100s of years, a chance to have a blade, even it if is a small one, and goes on the end of a rifle? Nah....there was no significance to that at all for them. It had no effect on their morale or in indoctrinating them into the bushido mindset. After all, only Samurai have swords, and if I have a bayonet, now I have a sword, so.... And, they never used them. There's a few people in China who might tend to disagree. EDIT: And the Banzai charge? That's a myth.

 

See? You can read about the bayonet, but you will never be able to analyze what you read properly, without somebody like me doing it for you.

 

A bayonet charge won the second day (arguably the entire battle). Joshua Chamberlain, look him up.

 

And Thomas Jackson's tactical instructions to his troops, at every level he commanded, in every battle from First Bull Run to Chancellorsville, were "one shot, then charge with bayonets."

Wait, so you aren't leaving gatorman to me?

 

And, hey, I already talked about Jackson. Now you are reiterating what I said above, and calling me ignorant?

Edited January 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Yes...but now you're starting to get to era of the development of the mass army, as opposed to the smaller, professional mercenary army. And that's exactly when that warrior ethos starts to diminish - when you start having regular schmoes recruited, drafted, or cajoled into the military without any investment in the "warrior code."

 

I would argue that the warrior class is alive and well today, and certainly lives by a code. I'd like to see you tell a Ranger that his warrior ethos is diminished, and that he hasn't invested in the "warrior code". In fact I believe I'd sell tickets to that.

 

Well, I am. And I'm also talking about the perception of "warriors" throughout history. And using the Iliad to illustrate the point that it's not just a bias, but a truly foundational principle in western thought that the people who stand back and shoot from cover are cowards. Yes, Paris won. He was also vilified for it, because that's honestly not what "warriors" fought for.

 

Yes, we all know about the cavalry going after the archers specifically, and showing them no mercy. Well, some of us do. But one wonders why such warriors would agree to fight in an army that had archers in it, if everything was as "pure" as you are describing. I call BS. Their army had archers in it the same as the other army, because: winning.

 

There's a HUGE difference between a sniper and artillery: A sniper kills on an individual, specific basis, artillery kills on a more general, random basis. A sniper targets people, artillery targets places or things. Basically, a sniper's personal, artillery's impersonal. The very day you call in a fire mission against "the tall lieutenant colonel on the left with the bushy eyebrows" instead of a map coordinate, you can tell me differently.

 

You honestly believe I couldn't see faces, and sometimes names when calling in artillery? My night vision had 100x magnification. I could see who had buttons undone on their uniform. Maybe that is impersonal for some people, because they aren't actually doing the firing, but when you look through the lens, you see people....then you give the coordinates. Then, thank god, I never had to watch what happened to those people next, but others have, and I'm told it never goes away.

 

I'll just leave you and gatorman to this discussion. You both seem to be at roughly the same level of ignorance.

 

Yeah, you quote Jackson's standiing order, after I already wrote it above, but I'm the same as gatorman. Get a grip.

Edited January 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Wait, so you aren't leaving gatorman to me?

 

And, hey, I already talked about Jackson. Now you are reiterating what I said above, and calling me ignorant?

 

How'm I supposed to know you talked about Jackson? I've told you before, I generally don't read your bull ****.

 

As a rule of thumb, if it contains more than two paragraphs or three smileys, I ignore it and mock you for being a raging narcissistic boor.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

How'm I supposed to know you talked about Jackson? I've told you before, I generally don't read your bull ****.

 

As a rule of thumb, if it contains more than two paragraphs or three smileys, I ignore it and mock you for being a raging narcissistic boor.

It was one paragraph, and don't make excuses.

 

You're an idiot.

 

Especially since you already know I know history as well, if not better, than you do. And, quit ducking the artillery thing. You've never drawn a bead on anybody in your life with any weapon of any kind direct or indirect. Until you do, don't pretend you know anything about it.

[DC Tom]

It was one paragraph, and don't make excuses.

 

You're an idiot.

 

Especially since you already know I know history as well, if not better, than you do. And, quit ducking the artillery thing. You've never drawn a bead on anybody in your life with any weapon of any kind direct or indirect. Until you do, don't pretend you know anything about it.

 

Ducking what artillery thing? I'm not ducking anything. Like I said, I don't read your posts.

[Deranged Rhino]

And, there's stll no difference between a sniper and me calling in artillery.

 

 

 

There's a HUGE difference between a sniper and artillery:

 

Air Sniper: