Fahrenheit 9/11

Simmo, I'm defining Moore by his art, because he is defining himself by his art. It would be fairly hard to condemn Lennon and McCartney through their own art, although I suppose that you could argue that they helped to develop the drugs culture. I certainly wouldn't condemn them.

Moore is no Lennon in any shape or form. Lennon disagreed with the policies at the time, and there are similarities in that respect. But for me Lennon had charm whereas Moore has none.
 
Well Rival, it depends on what you mean by a threat.

For most people, any war is distant until it reaches you.

A nuclear war is the ultimate failure. The destruction of everything. No future.

If there were a real threat of nuclear war then I'm sure that it would be comparable. You wouldn't need the war to be on your doorstep, because it could drop in at any time.

I suppose it comes down to the individual perception of what is ending. Is your own life more or less important than 'everything'?
 
Originally posted by terry@Jan 28 2005, 02:24 PM
Well Rival, it depends on what you mean by a threat.

For most people, any war is distant until it reaches you.

A nuclear war is the ultimate failure. The destruction of everything. No future.

If there were a real threat of nuclear war then I'm sure that it would be comparable. You wouldn't need the war to be on your doorstep, because it could drop in at any time.

I suppose it comes down to the individual perception of what is ending. Is your own life more or less important than 'everything'?
Click to expand...
And there was me thinking that Saddam was a real threat.
Thank god for George W Bush and Tony Blair for saving us from this foul deed.
 
Re the Moore/Lennon thingy, I like the work of both of them, they are/were both (IMO) arses in reality, their work is not the people that they are. Which brings me back to the politics as a personality contest rather than a policies contest thing.
 
terry, I don't know how familiar you are with other stuff by Christopher Hitchens, but I can assure you that he is even more biased in his philosphies than you claim Michael Moore to be.

As far as I'm concerned, the Bush issue has been done to death on here, no one's mind is going to be changed in either direction by logical debate and we still have members who believe, erroneously, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the twenty-first century.

I know that there ae some who share terry's view that what is going on in the US administration is typical of politicians all over the world, so why single them out? As a student of history I am confident in my view that this is the most corrupt, self-serving, hidebound administration that any democratic nation - and fortunately the USA is still a democracy and will remain so despite Dubya and his cronies - has ever had.
 
Brian, It doesn't matter what else Hitchens has written. Are you saying that there is no truth in his article? I'd be surprised if you were.

The thread started off on the basis that the film was a worthwhile piece. I disagree. I could watch the film but i wouldn't know if it were accurate or not.
I prefer to rely on the likes of Hitchens and Blair to the likes of Moore and his disciples, over this particular issue.
 
Anyhow, it's nice to give a 'Morgan type subject' a bit of welly today, and thanks to those who've taken part. It gets me going but i enjoy it.
 
Originally posted by terry@Jan 28 2005, 02:45 PM
Anyhow, it's nice to give a 'Morgan type subject' a bit of welly today, and thanks to those who've taken part. It gets me going but i enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Me too, but my boss has been a bit concerned.
 
Originally posted by terry@Jan 28 2005, 04:24 PM
Well Rival, it depends on what you mean by a threat.

For most people, any war is distant until it reaches you.

A nuclear war is the ultimate failure. The destruction of everything. No future.

If there were a real threat of nuclear war then I'm sure that it would be comparable. You wouldn't need the war to be on your doorstep, because it could drop in at any time.

I suppose it comes down to the individual perception of what is ending. Is your own life more or less important than 'everything'?
Click to expand...
i understant threat is this context to be an expression of someone's or some organisations state of mind.its the place before action but does not necessitate action.i think what we have experienced so far is the fear that there may in times of political unrest be an actual threat.we have not reached this point yet.

the destuction of everything with no future implies nothing exists after death.i do not subscribe to this view.

yes a real threat of nuclear war would instill fear.hope and faith your only comforts.comparable as you say to those that fought in the WWs.

for me ending as in bodily death is the beginning of eternal life.i think you are right to say comparison depends on what an individual believes in.
 
Well exactly. If you believe in an after life then you have a bit less to worry about, unless you're going to the other place!! :D
 
Well while channel hoping I came across this programme and watched it all !!! it was very interesting to see another side of the states!!! through an independent source...

I found the programme sort of intriguing it certainly held my interest for the full duration and my assessment of it was a case for alarm with BUSH involved in the Arab countries oil and the Bradley tank manufacture.......

Regards the producer have never heard of the guy but was an open account of some hokey pokey that seemed very apparent…………… :o B)
 
Well I was assuming that the threat of nuclear war arose from some sort of non-nuclear war in the first place. Difficult to see how it could 'go off' without some aggro.
 
I didn't see the film last night as I have been away, but I have seen it fairly recently and have a decent memory. Christopher Hitchens' piece is flawed in a number of places (as I would readily agree is Michael Moore's film), but particularly when, in reponse to Moore's reading from Orwell's 1984, he in turn quotes from Orwell's Notes On Nationalism to attack Moore's pacifism. The problem with that is that Moore is not a pacifist and has never claimed to be one, neither does the film preach a pacifist message. It's urgent to remember that most people who opposed the war in Iraq did so not out of 'intellectual pacifism" but because they believed it to be an illegal adventure waged for the wrong reasons.
 
Well at least someone is admitting that the film is flawed, Brian.

It would be interesting to see Moore put that evidence up in a court.

I suspect that a Hutchins' type cross examination would be enough to have him laughed out of court, whether CH's own style were a little OTT or not.
 
Terry I was being a bit obtuse in my earlier comment but being more so you state that it's difficult for war or nuclear to start without some "aggro".
Please tell me what aggro did Saddam Hussain start to get Bush and Blair start a warin Iraq.
In my eyes absolutely nothing and the more I think about last nights film the more I believe that Moore was right to expose the workings of George W Bush and his cronies in relation to Bin Laden and the false war in Iraq.
 
Well each to his own Hutchy.

I'd have thought that Saddam's murdering of his own people would be enough to warrant some intervention whatever you think the ulterior motives were.

I also think that we are nearer to peace in Palestine than we were in the days of the Scud missile. For me there's a bigger picture here but we'll probably never agree over that.
 
No I dont think we will agree Terry.
If butchering his own people was a catalyst for war then there are other countries too numerous to mention on here who have similar human rights issues. Should we invade all of those as well?
We may well have peace in Palestine but have we created another monster in Iraq?
 
I think that the likes of Moore and the esteemed former editor of the Daily Mirror haven't helped the situation in Iraq. It is all well and good having democracy and free speech but it does come with responsibilities, just as being President does.

Unfortunately Moore and the other idiot have abused their privileges.
 
Personally i didn't understand the premise of the film? Was it to show us Bush is a fool? Or was it to knock the Republican Party? Or was it to show Bush was bent?

Personally i couldnt watch it, it bored me that much. I had tuned in hoping for an intelligent but rational taking apart of Bush, instead what i found was a democratic propaganda piece that cannot be taken seriously.

It's funny how the US sees Michael Moore as this great talking head, whereas in England we see the film for what it really is: a one-sided, 140 minute rant with no end product. IMO anyway.

Even the little things were so one-sided it was almost unwatchable, take the exact time on 9/11 when Bush found out whilst he was talking to kids at a school. Moore knocks bush for not immediately standing up and leaving, but to be fair you're hardly trained to deal with terrorist attacks of that magnitude, and im sure most of us wouldnt know what to do.

Waste of over 2 hours. Lucky Pi later on was good.
 
I'd have thought that Saddam's murdering of his own people would be enough to warrant some intervention
Click to expand...

Why wait till 2003 to invade then? Why not the 70s or the 80s? Oh yes i remember he was one of the good guys back in those cold war years
 
rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
 
I don't get you David.

So the fact that Saddam continued to kill his own people, continued to threaten Israel and had already invaded Kuwait wasn't enough reason to intervene?

I for one am glad that he's gone and even if the price paid to achieve this is heavy and has been further increased by the likes of Michael Moore and Piers Morgan, I still think that in the long term it will be worth it.
 
Im with you Terry.
Hutchy nearly every country leader drops chemical bombs on the villages that dont support its party, and kill many of their own country men and bury them in mass graves thats all normal. :lol:
Yes Iraq will in time be a better place without Saddam and once they are also rid of this other guy Al Zaqari then life can move on you can see many iraqis are petrified and want a normal life.
 
Back
Top