General discussions : Non mobile discussion : The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
Bookmark topic
farenheit 9/11 has been receiving a bit of bad press here (good reviews for it as a film, but universal criticism as to it's accuracy and misrepresentation of the facts, and michael moore's gross manipulation of a grieving mother).
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 04:56:20
Edit :
Quote
Let’s get one thing straight, no documentary is objective. I don’t care if your old copy of Merriam-Webster’s says otherwise, show me a documentary – any documentary – and I’ll show you a filmmaker with a specific agenda they’re trying to support. Sometimes the subject matter is relatively benign (as in “Hoop Dreams”),sometimes less so but all of these movies are the result of the filmmaker’s choices in what to include and what to cull from their footage.
Sorry about that, but if you approach “Fahrenheit 9/11” with the attitude, “But it’s not objective,” there’s not much point in continuing.
Michael Moore is one of the most polarizing filmmakers of our time, and his films have received much more scrutiny than others of their ilk. Factual errors subsequently uncovered in “Roger and Me” and “Bowling for Columbine,” as well as in his books, have damaged his reputation and opened the door to widespread criticism of his techniques and accusations that he plays fast and loose with the facts to support his arguments. Some of these claims have merit (his continued incorrect assertions that the Bush Administration gave aid to the Taliban in 2000 and 2001), while others don’t – and if one wishes to criticize Moore for ambushing an old man suffering from senile dementia to debate the merits of gun control, well, maybe the NRA should have selected a spokesman actually capable of defending its position. With “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Moore still slips into hyperbole on occasion, but he makes his points forcefully and with less bluster than in previous efforts.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is a wide-ranging attack on, among other things, the way the Bush Administration has run the country these last three and a half years, the Florida recount, the Bush family’s ties to the bin Laden family and the Saudis, and the Administration’s management of the war against Iraq. Along the way, Moore takes swipes at Congress, the Senate, and the media. More than any of this, however, “Fahrenheit 9/11” is an all-out assault on George W. Bush, and Moore pulls no punches. Where earlier Moore films showcased a fair amount humor, even when covering weighty topics, “Fahrenheit” – especially the latter half – gives us Moore at his most serious.
Oh, he still goes for the easy laugh. The gratuitous “feed” footage of Bush and company as they get primped and made up for the cameras, while humorous, would be just as accurate for any politician, be they Republican or Democrat. And the point of including John Ashcroft crooning a love ballad to America (of his own writing, we’re told) eludes me, except perhaps to demonstrate our Attorney General’s horrible command of lyrics. These are cheap shots, and one of the reasons Moore’s credibility suffers (though I don’t think I’ll ever be able to cleanse my brain of the image of Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb).
The film does better when Moore adheres to matters of public record, like the bin Laden family’s support of Arbusto Energy, the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, and actual statements by the President and his Cabinet. The comedic set-ups so prevalent in his earlier films are largely absent here, and the movie makes its most powerful statements when Moore removes himself from the picture altogether and lets the footage – whether of American soldiers humiliating prisoners or a mother grieving for a son killed in Karbala – speak for itself.
What you won’t find much of in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” however, is selective editing or manipulation of President Bush’s words themselves. Moore does succumb to the occasional gimmick, but like it or not, the President has a serious credibility problem when it comes to public speaking. You can highlight Moore’s unsupported allegations concerning exactly how much money the Bush family and their friends and business partners have received from the Saudis ($1.4 billion, according to the film), or take him to task for his blue sky pictures of women and babies in Baghdad before the bombing started, but you can’t deny many of his points: that Bush opposed both a Congressional and an independent 9/11 panel, that the mainstream media played cheerleader to the Administration’s Iraq War policies, and that Bush cut combat pay and veteran’s benefits even while publicly lauding the troops.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is an undeniably powerful,As a polemic, it’s hard to beat. As a historical document that shows audiences things about the war and the Administration they may not have previously seen, it’s indispensable. It’s also not going to change anyone’s minds. If you already hate Moore, watching 2 hours of concentrated footage of Bush mangling the English language with a smirk on his face isn’t going to alter your views. Moore is preaching to the converted. Even so, he is as focused as he’s ever been on the task at hand. Some scenes, such as those showing Iraqis dragging the burned bodies of Americans behind a car, are extremely disturbing, and that’s probably Moore’s point. Perhaps if we’d been reminded earlier on how horrible war really is, we wouldn’t have been so gung ho to put our fighting men and women in harm’s way.
_________________
>>
>> [ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-07-24 12:54 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-24 13:53:01
Edit :
Quote
Let's just face the clear facts without writing a novel:
Everyone acts in their own interest, whether it is Saddam invading Iraq, Iran, or Kurdistan or US invading Iraq instead of Korea or Chirac staying out of the war because of the large middle eastern vote.
War is horrible and the situation in Iraq is now better for some, worse for some others. Hopefully, it will be better for most of them soon.
To me, US is acting in the entire worlds interest. And the word has been mentioned hundreds of times: OIL
Iraq has the largest untouched oil reserve in the world and we need it dearly. I'm neither selfish nor a capitalist. However, I don't want to sit on my ass when the shit hits the fan and the industrialized world runs out of oil. Even if technology is rapidly moving ahead we still need and will need lots of oil for our industries, homes, vehicles, etc. Norway and Russia (who supplies Asia and Europe with oil) have already said that they haven't found any new oil reserves they can tap. Iraq oil is very important to future world generations.
Conclusion: Gulf War 1 was to protect Kuwaiti oil supplies. Gulf War 2 is to protect Iraqi oil reserves.
Question: How would/will the Middle East be without world oil dependency? Would/will it be better off or worse? Why?
--
Posted: 2004-07-24 17:21:39
Edit :
Quote
I've often wondered this: Would Gulf War 2 (and I suppose it's prequel, Gulf War !) have occurred if Iraq's main export was bananas instead of oil? Was the US (and UK) just looking for someone to 'take out' in revenge for 9/11, whether it stopped global terrorism or not?
I'm far too tired to be asking these kinds of deep questions!
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 03:33:39
Edit :
Quote
Who is next on in the list?
This message was posted from a T630
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 03:49:34
Edit :
Quote
Depends on if Bush gets re-elected. If so, then my money's on Iran, or somewhere like Syria. I'm really hoping this doesn't happen, because invading countries like Iraq I don't think has made the world safer - it's added fuel to the extremist's cause, reinforces the illusion that this is a war on Islam, and in Iran' case, they the people don't want to be invaded, despite hating their government (which I've read about, and also after speaking to someone in Iran who doesn't like their government).
It would be interesting to see a 'regime change' initiated in Israel, can't see that happening though. For a start, Mossad probably have their act together much better than either any US or UK intelligence services - recent reports damning the intelligence communities in both those countries prove that.
--
Posted: 2004-07-25 12:12:35
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-17 09:46:06, axxxr wrote:
THIS IS HOW THE AMERICAN AIR FORCE KILLS INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN IRAQ
The pilot says to command "I've got numerous individuals on the road you want me to take those out" gets reply "Take them out" after bombing them says "oh dude"
CLICK HEREWindows Media Player Format
Where is any indication that the pilot saying "numerous individuals" refers to civilians? Is there any evidence that the group fired upon was not a military group? Context people! Context!
--
Posted: 2004-07-27 17:40:04
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-17 20:28:51, axxxr wrote:
Sammy-boy said:
The audio on that clip seems a little TOO clear.... I do wonder about it's authenticity.
------------------------------------------------------
Why do you always have to always suggest that somehow that the americans are the innocent party here,and everyone else out they are hell bent on making or creating elaborate hoaxes against them..by the way that clip above is a official pentagon released clip taken from the an american news site..I can recall back when the Abu-ghraib prison scandel broke out that it was said that somehow it was all a lie made to make the american look bad..Just for the record the Americans have a extremely poor human rights record in in all Vietnam wars aswell as the Gulf wars..You only have to look at the majority of innocent prisoners held at Guantanemo bay and the daily torture and abuse they have to suffer to see how humane the american army and the government really are..A lot of even worse american atrocities are yet to be uncovered in Iraq.I would trust saddam more than g.bush...these atrocities are just the tip of the iceberg..
Why do you have to always assume that the clips are authentic? Why not make no assumptions and go for the real thing ... ask for proof.
And about this clip - I don't doubt it was authentic. Heck - it was realsed by the US military. But all it does is say "numerous individuals" ... not "numerous civilians". How do you know those people on the ground were non-combatants? And why would the US military release such a damning clip without being forced to?
Guantanamo Bay - Daily Torture? You don't know jack about it - even if it were true.
You call our human rights record "Extremely Poor" and then say in the same paragraph that you'd trust Saddam more than Bush! Where is the logic in that? And if you want to back up your false claims all you'd need to do is point us to the web page for the Human Rights Record of the USA. Oh wait ...
Here it is. That was easy.
Okay - now we can see all the attrocious things the USA has done this year.
Now ... let's compare that to
the 1999 report for Iraq ... which was under Saddam.
But you say that's too much reading for you? Ahhh, come on. Think how good it will feel to be proven right for once. Unless you're wrong!
... So the USA isn't looking so hot. Lot's of people detained. Some say suspected terrorists. Others say they need their day in court. What's that ... the US Supreme Court has ordered that the US grant detainees their day in court. Awesome.
And ... Let's see ... uh oh. Under Saddam:
Quote:In April [1999] the un Commission on Human Rights condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the government of Iraq”, and extended for a further year the mandate of the un Special Rapporteur on Iraq.
That doesn't sound good. But hey ... at least Saddam was better than Bush. Yeah! On Bizzaro Backwards World.
Hey - you can hate the USA all you like but I ask once again - before you go spewing your vile lies about the United States - just get your facts straight. OKAY???
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 17:45 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-27 18:01:55
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-18 07:22:23, axxxr wrote:
that CNN,FOX NEWS and other respectable news channels
That takes us up to 4 things Axxxr and I agree upon:
1. Americans need to travel more to learn to appreciate other cultures and peoples.
2. The International Red Cross has been allowed to inspect Guantanamo Bay.
3. That the fight threads were fun while they were open.
4. That Fox News is a respectable news channel.
--
Posted: 2004-07-27 18:06:39
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-18 07:22:23, axxxr wrote:
Bush is responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than saddam ever killed.to be specific over the 2 gulf wars estimated number of Iraqi's killed is over 200,000.
...just that remember that this is a serious issue and you have to see the difference between right and wrong,good & bad.
Where did you see that the estimate of Iraqi deaths as 200,000?
Yes this is a serious issue ... too serious to have people lie about it. You started to link us to posts that tended to prove things you asserted as facts. Even though one was found to be completely without credibility (the so called torture in Ahbugrahb [whatever spelling]) and the other doesn't prove what you asserted (US Air force fired on civilians - how do you know they were not combatants) and the other was shown to be a
red-herring argument (rape accusations in Iraq being used against bush when the UN is accused of horrible torture itself but you still see K. Annan as Secretary General, why?). Keep up the good work and try to support your assertions with evidence.
--
Posted: 2004-07-27 18:40:14
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
