Fahrenheit 9/11

[EXlurker]

What does Moore know about being poor? He certainly isn't starving.

He was until the age of 35.

"I didn't have any of this so-called success until I was 35 years old with Roger & Me. Up until that point, I never made more than $15,000 a year. When you spend the first 17 years in other words, half of your adult life earning $15,000 or less, it really doesn't matter what kind of success you have after that. It's so ingrained in you."-M.M.

I'd say wanting some Americans to pay 70% in taxes is a bit extreme---at least in a capitalistic country. Perhaps Moore should relocate to Sweden.

I saw that interview with O'Reilly. The "some Americans" was in reference to the top 1-2%. And in a kidding remark he also included O'Reilly at a higher percentage. As much as I want to debate, it's hard to argue opinions. And frankly, I don't want the extra hour of homework. Michael Moore is only exercising his right. If you don't like it, go make your own movie.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/05/fahrenheit.tm/

[brusch]

Whatever site you quoted (in the 1st post) incorrectly listed Bill O'Reilly as a "conservative". O'Reilly has stated time and time again that he is "Independent"

He may say that but in reality he's much more of an a--hole.

While this film is categorized as a documentary, there will always be those who label it as full of propaganda and fallacy, while others accept everything portrayed as occurring in-context. It is a social satire, and at some point someone needs to ask the questions that should have been asked long ago or have been ignored by other media outlets.

There are millions of Americans such as myself who were hit hard in some way by the events of 9/11. Yet as each day goes by, that sorrow turns to anger as we get further and further off track in preventing further tragedies while retaining the freedoms that many of us take for granted. This movie was made because there are members of this administration who were drawing up plans for attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001 while the WTC still was smoldering and hundreds of firefighters were looking for those who didn't make it. The war on terror won't be won with a preemptive Bush doctrine, but rather through intelligence and more covert operations. So now the president who pledged no nation building is doing so at an enormous cost of lives and resources. And no, I would not have preferred to see Saddam stay in power. Quite the opposite, I feel the US should have tried to use various resources to help those who who suffered after the first Gulf War. But that's not why we are there - I'm not sure why we're there. To create a democracy - by invading them?

It is obvious your mind is made up on this subject Puck which is fine, but how many of us are safer today than we were three years ago? Moore isn't trying to point fingers as to why 9/11 happened, but rather that the reaction to it has gone off in the wrong direction. I'll admit I'm left of center on most issues, but also that Kerry isn't necessarily the right answer to what has happened. It's just that for those with similar opinions, Bush certainly isn't the answer.

[CEO]

...members of this administration who were drawing up plans for attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001 while the WTC still was smoldering and hundreds of firefighters were looking for those who didn't make it.

On September 12th, there were already Special operations units mobilizing to go directly to Afganistan. By October 1st, there were over a hundred operators in country, doing the job. The aim of the United States was clearly on Bin Laden and the places where he was hiding -- Iraq came later.

[CEO]

Continued Hijack ---> Much of the intelligence that the United States garnered from raids in Afganistan led directly back to terror plots that didn't happen here. The GWOT is shutting down attacks against the United States faster than they can be executed; this is a good thing. There will be more threats and there is always the possibility of more attacks, but to assume that nothing is happening and no one is 'safer' because you haven't felt threatended is assinine. I prefer that we never hear a word about our successes.

[Amanda]

This conversation is veering considerably off-track. There is a thread somewhere in Current Events about this movie. If you want to continue this particular topic, I think you'd be better off doing it there. If you want to talk about the movie, do it here. Thank you.

[Broadway]

During world war II, the United States invaded Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Many American Soldiers died in this campbaign, in a country that never hurt the United States, but it was a strategic necessity to be able to get to the German Army, who also never attacked the United States. Strategy and tactics are two different concepts -- we went to Iraq to fight the war on Terror, not to end it.

CEO... we went to Afghanistan to fight the war on terror. As Moore points out (and as many many a person believed even without seeing the movie), we went to Iraq under the premise of fighting the war on terror because Bush had his own agenda. At the beginning he defended his invasion by saying that there was credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was funding Al Queda. The credible evidence has gone by the same wayside that has befallen the WMD claims.

Now if you tried to claim that we went into Iraq as a means to get to Al Queda in Afghanistan, that would be a different story and would merit your comparison. We didnt need to enter Iraq to get into Afghanistan, and this war has done nothing to aide the cause of dissolving terrorism, it has only served to incite more. We are now, indeed, the most hated country in the free world.

[Amanda]

What did I just say?

Seriously, take it to CE if you want to talk about this. I'm deleting any more posts that don't specifically deal with the movie. I'll assume this is clear now.

[CEO]

CEO... we went to Afghanistan to fight the war on terror. As Moore points out (and as many many a person believed even without seeing the movie), we went to Iraq under the premise of fighting the war on terror because Bush had his own agenda. At the beginning he defended his invasion by saying that there was credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was funding Al Queda. The credible evidence has gone by the same wayside that has befallen the WMD claims.

I'm deleting any more posts that don't specifically deal with the movie.

In the movie F/911, one of Michael Moore's main themes is that we stopped fighting the Global War on Terror so that we could instead fight with the peaceful Iraqis. Michael Moore went out of his way in the movie to portray this thought. The way I am tying into this thread and the movie (and the subsequent commentaries about it) is that Tunisia during World War II and the war with Iraq were not endstates, but rather Strategic advances made to facilitate follow on campaigns. Afghanistan could not be used as a real FOB because it is far too remote and instead of fending against Jihadis at our airports and our own city streets, we chose a more accomodating location for the Wahabists to get their chance to shoot at an American (an ARMED American). Now we have strategic Brigade and Division sized forces stationed on the border of the most antagonistic and destabilizing country in the world, Iran -- How well do you think the mullahs are planning for future USS Cole Bombings and plane hijackings right now? George Bush IS fighting the GWOT in Iraq, he is just doing it at a level that Michael Moore does not have the background or credentials to understand.