PDA

View Full Version : Fahrenheit 9/11


Hari Seldon
June 26th, 2004, 02:10
I have just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 – and I would encourage everyone to see this. It presents a disturbing picture of our policy in Iraq, and our policy in the Mid-East in general, albeit with Michael Moore’s slant. Moore clearly has an agenda here (he doesn’t hide that fact) but the film presented some information that I had never seen reported before, and some policies that I believe are quite disturbing.

Know that conspicuously absent from the film is any reference to Senator John Kerry – and his (and the Democratic party’s) complicit support of the war effort, and his (Kerry’s) lack of support for minority concerns regarding the contested Presidential election results (no Senators – Democrat or Republican – appeared to support the minority US Representatives in the joint session to approve the election results) which Mr. Moore implies is responsible for our current conflict.

Why do we allow former Presidents of the United States to represent private corporations as paid consultants/board members/etc with foreign or domestic institutions. Once a President, they maintain the title and salary until death, but they no longer represent the interests of the general populace of the USA. Allowing Presidents to speak seems appropriate (ie NRA, Habitat for Humanity, etc) but not dealing with foreign governments/businesses (Carter’s visit to Castro/Cuba, Bush’s visits to Saudi Arabia.)

The apparent intelligence failures or oversites leading up to September 11 are staggering. Ashcroft telling the head of the FBI to not report/discuss terrorist threats shows extremely poor judgement, especially in light of subsequent events. Not questioning family/associates of bin Laden before allowing them to leave the US in the immediate aftermath of Sept 11 seems criminal, or at least negligent.

The arrogance our government has shown in pursuing the war in Iraq on what appear to be weak premises/intelligence is disappointing, and I believe tarnishes our international reputation and moral footing.

The nepotism and duplicity our government has shown in granting contracts, political appointments both domestic and abroad is sickening.

The thread dealing with the Flint woman and her son in the military (and the family history of military service) is touching, but I think reflects the realities of conflict and the naïveté she has regarding military service. She shows no remorse about other families losses/injuries – only reassess her attitude when faced with her own loss. This reinforces the feeling that we need to be certain the goal in armed conflict is appropriate and obtainable before committing such valuable resources.

I don’t pretend to think that the intrinsic faults in our system are unique to the current administration, but I come away from this film with a feeling that we are failing to govern correctly, and need to pursue a more responsive and circumspect government.

Some of my own observations. This is a film that sets out to paint President Bush in the worst light possible, and succeeds. There is no rebuttal or opposing view presented. Like I said, I encourage everyone to view this film with an open mind, and expect to find things that surprise and shock you.

Acedeal
June 26th, 2004, 02:14
Moore made way to may non-supported comments / observations and shot any credibility he had to all to hell.

Documentary film?

From the American Heritage Dictionary: “Documentary - A work, such as a film, presenting its subject matter factually, often with news films, interviews, and narration.�

Getting insight into the Iraq war from a Michael Moore film is like getting insight into gravity from a Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoon. To paraphrase, facts are something to which Michael Moore has not even a nodding acquaintance. :)

5thColumn
June 26th, 2004, 05:37
Um why? This is America. We are captilists by defenition. That means we take what we can get when we can get it. Truth Honor and a moral self conviction is not an issue when exploiting or at least taking the system for what it is worth. We are all happily taking advantage of the system when it is in our favor, yet we expect the human beings that we elect to office to be beeter than us by not doing the same. I by no means agree with what is done, but I can not deny the fact that you have very few options for a job after you have held some of the highest offices available. We all have bills and expenses, granted they do not include bodyguards, so I may not agree with their ethics, but I understrand the motivation that you have to pay the bills, especillay when you life depends upon it.

Hari Seldon
June 26th, 2004, 07:23
Moore made way to may non-supported comments / observations and shot any credibility he had to all to hell.

I agree. I think much of the clips/footage of Pres. Bush is taken out of context. This film should be viewed knowing that it is slanted heavily (to the highest degree) - but some of the info was very interesting and provocative.

Um why? This is America. We are captilists by defenition. That means we take what we can get when we can get it. Truth Honor and a moral self conviction is not an issue when exploiting or at least taking the system for what it is worth.

Not sure what you are referring to here - I agree small fries like you and me can milk the system for what we can get. Former Presidents are different - they are still salaried for life (so they shouldn't need the money - unless their wife has decided to be a Senator from some state you never lived in and you have lots of legal bills to pay for - note this is sarcasm.) and whether they like it or not, everywhere they go they represent the USA. If they are negotiating trade deals/contracts I think "President X" will be more influential than "John Doe" (no offence, John.)

I think this is a film worth seeing - and criticizing/debating. I was disappointed that Moore didn't present a more "fair and balanced" perspective, but I see that is not his intent. We definitely need to take everything with a "grain of salt" and look at the other side, too.

Hari Seldon
June 26th, 2004, 07:34
One other thing - I have a hard time believing this was the best film shown at the Cannes Film Festival - doesn't say much for the upcoming movie season :-?:

recon73
June 26th, 2004, 08:39
I have seen reviews, and heard comments from both points of view, and it's easy to see there is an agenda on the left. One thing I found very amusing was the fact that Mr. Moore claims Flint Mich. as his blue collar rooted home, when in fact he is a spoiled white rich kid from a high class mich. suburb. He has 2 homes, both worth almost 2 million bucks each.
Another part of this movie you "Won't" see is where he interviewed cerrtain congressional leaders to ask them to get their kids to join the Army so they could go to Iraq, but won't include any of the interviews of the ones who have relatives "in" Iraq. "Slanted?" you betcha!

Acedeal
June 26th, 2004, 12:12
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012

Also love the fact that alJazeerah is promoting this film
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/June/18o/Some%20People%20Still%20Don%27t%20Want%20You%20To% 20See%20My%20Movie%20By%20Michael%20Moore.htm

A break down of how Moore tricks, deceives and lies
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/Emails/PR20040617-1.html

I think the best quote I've seen about this guy and his movies is

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Panda
June 28th, 2004, 09:23
I was disappointed with the film. I think it might be because Michael Moore is so unattractive. :P:

It's just way too leftist slanted for my tastes.

PandaJew
June 28th, 2004, 09:52
After watching Bowling for Colombine I decided i would never watch a film made by him again
So I dont plan on watching this one. He is just way to extreme in his views for my liking!!!!

-=DoW=- Lago
June 28th, 2004, 17:52
I would never in my right mind or not see any movie by that guy. I honestly think he's more insane then Saddam.

FlipinAsian
June 28th, 2004, 22:24
I watched it and I took my brother along to see it. (They were not enforcing the R rating for this film.) I thought it was alright, and although Bush was taken a little too far, I didn't seem to think much of it.

Slanted? Yes. It's just as slanted as Bowling for Columbine. (we always gotta blame someone else.) :|:

Dutchie
July 2nd, 2004, 08:46
Nice one HARI! :lol:

Same has been brought up on many other forums I'm a member off...

Nice topic to discuss!

Panda
July 2nd, 2004, 08:59
The thread dealing with the Flint woman and her son in the military (and the family history of military service) is touching, but I think reflects the realities of conflict and the naïveté she has regarding military service. She shows no remorse about other families losses/injuries – only reassess her attitude when faced with her own loss. This reinforces the feeling that we need to be certain the goal in armed conflict is appropriate and obtainable before committing such valuable resources.

What I found irritating about that section of the movie is that how she blames the government/military for the death of her son and how it's their fault for putting her son in harms way. But isn't that the risk that you take when you join the Army? And the complete lack of remorse for other families and their losses is disturbing. If she feels the necessity to blame someone shouldn't she blame herself for allowing or encouraging her son to join the military?

Ideally, shouldn't she feel pride for her son's sacrifice for the country?

recon73
July 2nd, 2004, 09:41
We had a Woman Guardsman here on the east coast, that after she found out she was to go to Afghanistan, had a fit... she said :shock: "I didn't think I would have to fight anyone" "I joined to get free schooling" "I don't think I should have to go" :shock:

SilberPfeil
July 2nd, 2004, 10:13
That's the problem with a lot of kids (pre 9/11) who joined the military, they did it to get the free schooling. Also it is why we have a problem with non-combat related jobs. The Army did it all wrong by not imposing the "Warrior ethos" in every soldier straight from basic training. In the Marines you're Infantry first and then you can do the job you trained for.

Panda
July 2nd, 2004, 11:26
It looks like many people are completely missing the point of joining the army. Free money/education is their attitude. That's just plain wrong.