Rant on "Fahrenheit 9/11" SPOILERS!

[SeanDMan]

In conclusion, fuck Dukes.

[britneyspearsisgod]

Why is it that there always seems to be a conclusion that in any thread Dukes posts in, we must fuck him? I'm not saying the guy is ugly or anything, but he ain't my type.

Oh, you meant "fuck Dukes" in another light... I understand.

(The shittest jokes are the best folks )

[Ananas]

Alright, first let me say I liked the movie. Moore builds the case for Bush being an incompitent President. However, there are two things I must mention that I disagreed with:

1) Moore's "recruiting" of the Reps children: This is a completely unfair argument. I understand that it's interesting that only one rep has a son over in Iraq. However, to go and recruit the kids through parents is ridiculous. People do not send their children overseas. It is the children of these parents who need to sign up. To try to get these representatives to sign their kids up is unfair, since in the end it's the kid's decision. Asking the representatives whether they'd want their sons and daughters overseas would have been a better tact, but he didn't do that.

2) The Classroom Scene: My objection here is not to Moore's technique, but just my interpreting it differently. By 10 minutes into this movie, I felt oddly sorry for Bush. He's a man who's been unsuccessful in life, and has been President for a embarassing nine months, only to have this dumped on him. He's quite clearly not up to the task of President, and this new news completely takes him a back. Those 7 minutes in which he stayed in the classroom was likely a time of panic for him, not because he's some kind of criminal, but because of the weight of this situation.

That's it. I was surprised at how little of this documentary seemed unfair to me. Bowling for Columbine was really bipolar for me, and this seems like a much more balanced film. Hope not to get jumped on with childish insults for this, but with the gravity of this thread I guess I shouldn't hope for too much.

[sahyder1]

Asking the representatives whether they'd want their sons and daughters overseas would have been a better tact, but he didn't do that.

That's basically what he asked. He asked if they would sign up to send their kids to Iraq.

[Quom]

That still doesn't stop him from volunteering after the pullout.  He could have volunteered for the National Guard even, but he didn't.

←

This is always my favorite argument. What right does someone have to criticise somehting unless they were part of it.

On the surface it makes sense to some degree. However plenty of people who use this argument against people who criticise war without ever being involved, are the same people who complain about abortion being legal despite the fact that they have never had a baby aborted.

Edit- Unless you wish to stop talking about everything you have never been involved in (wrestling for one) this argument both sucks and blows equally.

Edited July 9, 2004 by Quom

[Big Red Fury]

Well I am only 17, so technically I can't volunteer assclown. And to top it off, I was thinking of doing so, but I'm sure you took that into consideration before posting eh?

*EDIT part 1* What the hell does wrestling have anything to do with this thread?

*EDIT part 2* I love how Moore actually cut out his segment with Rep. Kennedy when he asks him to help recruit members sons or daughters. If he had left it in then we would all know that Kennedy agreed to do so, saying something to the effect of "especially those of whom who supported the war."

Edited July 9, 2004 by Jesus H. Christ

[Quom]

Well I am only 17, so technically I can't volunteer assclown.  And to top it off, I was thinking of doing so, but I'm sure you took that into consideration before posting eh?

*EDIT part 1* What the hell does wrestling have anything to do with this thread?

*EDIT part 2* I love how Moore actually cut out his segment with Rep. Kennedy when he asks him to help recruit members sons or daughters.  If he had left it in then we would all know that Kennedy agreed to do so, saying something to the effect of "especially those of whom who supported the war."

←

What the hell does Michael Moore not going to war have anything to do with this thread? Oh that's right sweet fuck all. Anyone can have an opinion on anything. To try to say that only those that have experienced something have the right to say anything about that topic is asanine.

The point is, you feel as if you have the right to hold an opinion on a number of things of which you have never been involved in. To hold Moore up to a different standard is a bit stupid don't you think?

Edited July 9, 2004 by Quom

[Big Red Fury]

What the hell does Michael Moore not going to war have anything to do with this thread? Oh that's right sweet fuck all. Anyone can have an opinion on anything. To try to say that only those that have experienced something have the right to say anything about that topic is asanine.

The point is, you feel as if you have the right to hold an opinion on a number of things of which you have never been involved in. To hold Moore up to a different standard is a bit stupid don't you think?

←

It was brought up when somebody on page 2 commented about Moore asking congressmen/women to send their kids to war and then asking why Moore never volunteered during Vietnam. All you had to do was read the thread to figure that out. I was just elaborating on that thought.

And now back to a previous point. Somebody said that the reason Michael Moore is a millionaire is because he went to college. If Flint, Michigan is as run down as Moore shows, and if we are lead to believe that the interview with the mom who said that almost all cannot afford to pay for their kids to go to college(ie. why she pimped the military on her now dead son) then how in the hell did Moore make it to college?

*EDIT*

The point is, you feel as if you have the right to hold an opinion on a number of things of which you have never been involved in. To hold Moore up to a different standard is a bit stupid don't you think?

Which is what Michael Moore is doing the entire film correct? Holding an opinion on things he's never been involved with? In otherwords I just need to grab a camcorder, film myself saying what I've been saying, and that would make it valid? Or is it different somehow? Also I finish by saying that I have "the right" as you put it to do alot of things, this is guaranteed to be by a beautiful little document written almost 230 years ago, you mayhave read about it in school I think.

Edited July 9, 2004 by Jesus H. Christ

[sahyder1]

And now back to a previous point.  Somebody said that the reason Michael Moore is a millionaire is because he went to college.  If Flint, Michigan is as run down as Moore shows, and if we are lead to believe that the interview with the mom who said that almost all cannot afford to pay for their kids to go to college(ie. why she pimped the military on her now dead son) then how in the hell did Moore make it to college?

←

Well....who says he wasn't a bright kid and didn't have scholarhips? How he got to college had no relevance to what's happening in Flint now. If you've studied his work in the past you'd know that he talks about industries leaving Flint and that's how the conditions worsened. Notice how it says "almost all parents" have to send kids to the military not "all"

[Big Red Fury]

Well....who says he wasn't a bright kid and didn't have scholarhips? How he got to college had no relevance to what's happening in Flint now. If you've studied his work in the past you'd know that he talks about industries leaving Flint and that's how the conditions worsened. Notice how it says "almost all parents" have to send kids to the military not "all"

←

The how does he speak for all of Flint, shouldn't he have more poor people talking about it since it's their plight and not his?

[sahyder1]

The how does he speak for all of Flint, shouldn't he have more poor people talking about it since it's their plight and not his?

←

well they don't have the ability to go out there and speak. Do you think if they made a random documentary about Flint people would care? You need Moore's face on there for it to get even a slight recognition.

[Big Red Fury]

well they don't have the ability to go out there and speak. Do you think if they made a random documentary about Flint people would care? You need Moore's face on there for it to get even a slight recognition.

←

If people didn't care before Moore, they wouldn't care after. Let's not give him too much credit, he's not THAT influential.

[Quom]

It was brought up when somebody on page 2 commented about Moore asking congressmen/women to send their kids to war and then asking why Moore never volunteered during Vietnam.  All you had to do was read the thread to figure that out.  I was just elaborating on that thought.

I just re-read the whole thread and the closest thing I can come up with is this

He asks congressmen if they will send their sons to fight in the war.

Did Michael Moore serve in the Army during Vietnam?

Where was Michael Moore during the draft?

Which was then answered by Syco to which you said

That still doesn't stop him from volunteering after the pullout. He could have volunteered for the National Guard even, but he didn't.

Like for some reason Moore is less of a man or deserves less of a say for never being a member of the military. Which is an illogical stance.

*EDIT*

Which is what Michael Moore is doing the entire film correct?  Holding an opinion on things he's never been involved with?  In otherwords I just need to grab a camcorder, film myself saying what I've been saying, and that would make it valid?  Or is it different somehow?  Also I finish by saying that I have "the right" as you put it to do alot of things, this is guaranteed to be by a beautiful little document written almost 230 years ago, you mayhave read about it in school I think.

←

Yes of course you could make your own film, I never said you couldn't. Also I never said that Moore presents a cogent or valid argument, if you check the movie review thread you will see I gave bowling an average review. I only took exception as I thought you were trying to imply that Moore shouldn't be able to make a film based around war since he has never been.

[Big Red Fury]

I wasn't implying that he couldn't or shouldn't make the movie, I just don't agree with his opinions.

[britneyspearsisgod]

Christopher Tookey, the Daily Mail films critic in the UK, had this to say about Moore. Note that he REALLY doesn't like him. He even gave the film a "Turkey" (means absolute shite) and gave the verdict of "The contemptible Michael Moore tries to bring down the President with his own coalition of the foolish and the gullible". I figured it'd be of some use here.

Here is the two-hour documentary that many think will bring down President Bush. It won a 20-minute standing ovation at this year's Cannes Film Festival - and it's top award, the Palme d'Or. It has recieved rave reviews in most American newspapers and opened strongly in over 500 cinemas - an achievement never previously achieved by a documentry. Yet it isn't as funny as "Roger and Me" or "Bowling For Columbine", the documentaries that made Michael Moore his name as a scourge of the Establishment.

There's little logical structure to his rambling arguments; he has no revelations to make; and much of the footage is already in the public domain. His most damaging assertions are either unsubstantiated or untrue - often both.

It's tone is one of personal hatred, with George Bush the scapegoat for everything that Moore thinks is wrong with America. This gives the film what cohesion it has and is clearly meant to make it's audiences feel angrier and angrier, but it also makes for monotony and a feeling that the truth is being, at the very least, over-simplified. There are some who think this film will make history, but really it just rewrites history in cartoon form. Compare it to the truly great documentaries, and it's superficiality and lack of regard for the truth becomes painfully apparent.

The second half of Moore's uniquelly repellent movie is about the inevitable losses and horrors brought about by any war, and exists simply to wring tears and outrage out of any audience cretinous enough to think that bombs and bullets don't kill people.

The first half is rabble-rousing rhetoric so unscrupulous that it makes Nazi propaganda films look namby-pamby. One of the deepest ironies of the Iraq war is that Andrew Gilligan, defence correspondent on Radio 4's Today programme (Ed note: it's a radio show in England), made one unintended over-statement to a tiny audience at around 6am and irrevocably destroyed his own career and the repuation of the BBC. Moore cheerfully and cynically crams dozens of factual distortions into Farenheit 9/11. But he will make millions because he's telling the Unthinkable Left exactly the lies it wants to hear. Sitting through the film is almost as depressing as listening to the people who are taken in by it.

Especially pitiful is the excessive, unreasoning violence of Moore's hatred for Bush, whom he paints as both a ruthless criminal mastermind and a lazy, imcompetent nincompoop. It doesn't seem to have occured to Mike that he can't possibly be both. In 2002, Moore was arguing that the American invasion of Afghanistan to bring down the Taliban was a mistake, and Osama Bin Laden was innocent until proven guilty. By 2003, he clearly realised that this argument would not play into the movie-going masses, so he changed his mind. Completely. He now claims that Osama was claerly guilty all along, and Bush didn't invade Afghanistan quickly enough! Moore seems to think that a two-month delay was ridiculously long to check out whether Bin Laden really did mastermind the 9/11 atrocities, to build an alliance of numerous nation states and to organize an open-ended commitment to invading and occupying a country thousands of miles from America. It is clear from this that Moore's willingness to understand the very difficult security, diplomatic and logistical issues involved is non-existent.

He is keen on capturing Bin Laden and incredulous that he hasn't been caught. But then he has never been to Afghanistan and seems to have no knowledge of the terrain. One reason Moore doesn't have any time for the truth is that he's too busy making snide insinuations that the Bushes and the Bin Laden family are in league - too bad that he doesn't seem sure exactly how, why and to what effect. Actually, it would be surprising if two families so involved in the international oil industry didn't know each other, and the other members of the Bin Laden family disowned Osama many years ago. Moore produces just one example of Bush-Bin Laden collusion - that just after 9/11, when American airspace was closed to US citizens, Bush authorised the Bin Laden family to fly out of America for their own saftey without being questioned by the FBI. He is wrong on three counts: they were flown out only after American airspace had been opened again; most of the family were interviewed and cleared by the FBI; and the executive who decided to authorise their flight was not Bush, but Richard Clarke, the President's former chief of counter-terrorism and now one of Bush's most vociferous critics, so he has no reason to whitewash him. Moore also insinuates, without producing a shred of evidence, that the Saudi royal family exerts improper influence over President Bush. Well, if they do they haven't had much impact on his support for Israel or on the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, three policies to which the Saudis have been vehemently opposed.

Moore's most outrageous lie is to paint Saddam's Iraq (which of course, he never visited) as an idyllic place, full of jolly, smiling faces. I suppose that kind of footage was easier to fomd tjam photos of the thousands who disappeared into Saddam's torture chambers, or all those Kurds he gassed, or the Kuwaitis that his men slaughtered. Still, it's a pity that Moore couldn't find time to make even one mention of Saddam's history of intimidation, murder and genocied. Nor, curiously, does Moore choose to reveal Saddam's well-documented assistance to Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and Palestinian terrorist groups, including suicide bombers to whose families Sdam proudly gave financial support. Instead, he makes the fatuous assertion that Iraq under Saddam "never attacked or killed or even threatened any American". Surely even he must recollect that the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait? Moore actually refers to the assationation attempt in his own documentary. However much Moore hates the whole Bush family, not even he can pretend that they are not American. And if Saddam was such a harmless old pussycat, how come it has been discovered since the allies' occupation of Iraq that Saddam had been negotiating secretly in Syria with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to buy missiles and a missile-protection system? Even if it does turn out that Bush and Blair were misled into thinking Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (and he certainly had chemical weapons in the past), even Moore should be prepared to acknowledge that Saddam wanted these weapons, had the oil revenue to buy them and was ready to support terrorism in countries other than his own.

The evidence is clear, but Moore refuses to see it, preferring to cloud the issues in snide character-assassination and unsubstantiated innuendo. I went into this film expecting it to be unscrupulously selective and intellectually dishonest; after all, why should this be any different from Michael Moore's other films? I did not expect it to be quite so lazy, incoherent, foolish and dull.

I don't agree wtih the message, and he is very anti-Moore... but he makes some damn good points you can't overlook. I'll catch the film one day, but probably not anytime soon.