Fahrenheit 9/11

The point is a simple one, fudge, I'll make it once more. The USA supported the Saddam Hussein regime after it had gassed its own people and was known to have killed many Kurds and others. It was only when it suited the US administration for its own ends that Saddam became the enemy.
 
Terry, your kind of responses are what make Michael Moore's adventures in filming neccessary.

To me it is obvious that the invasion of Iraq was not done on humanitarian grounds. The classic defence of the Bush sympathists being "Would you prefer Saddam Hussein to be in power?" They, the US went in to serve their own interests. They are the big boys and can do what they want. Most of us in the Western World realistically see them as a benign power, well I'll speak for myself, but the reasons for the iraq invasion were dressed up as home security defence spin, when I think the favourite reason was more to do with big business and much to do with the machinations of the Bush family and friends. I certainly dont think they are looking for downtrodden nations to liberate.

I dont like Moore much, his books are god awful, but to class him as a democratic propogandist would be equally false.
 
Originally posted by simmo@Jan 28 2005, 12:06 PM
and ignoring the important facts which are presented in the film (not views or opinions, but facts) due to a personal dislike of the presenter is exactly the reason why George W Bush is stll President.
Click to expand...
I agree with Simmo but although I think that this is a very valid expose of the Bush government I don't think it's original because anyone reading the UK broadsheets would have been aware of most of the information in the film It's also very hard for any frequent filmgoer to look beyond the personality of Michael Moore because his career has been built on just that , his personality . In general though I find his views reactionary and without depth (knowing his views on Northern Ireland )I think he knows how to play a controversial subject for his own benefit .
I agree with the basic message of F 9/11 it's just the motive of the filmaker I would question . I don't trust celebrities :P
 
I might agree with the invasion of all countries run by oppressive dictators.

However, I would never agree to the decision to do so being made unilaterally by the USA - with preference evidently given to overthrowing dictators sitting on oil reserves.

I'd rather see the UN organising this sort of intervention.

For all their talk of protecting the world from ''evil,'' the USA remains the only nation to have dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone - the hypocrisy of the USA hawks and their apologists never ceases to amaze me.
 
Well there's nothing more to be said really.

If you think that this film was a credible piece of work by a worthwhile individual then of course you are entitled to your view. I am more than happy to see people hold differing views to my own as these differences are what makes the world go round and give it momentum. However, I also maintain that the likes of Moore contribute little or nothing worthwhile and are in fact damaging the efforts of those democratically elected to act on our behalf.

I do try to at least understand the alternative view but in this case I simply cannot understand why it is that others admire Moore and his work. I think that this must be why the world is so divided over these issues. There is little or no middle ground. Whilst i can accept that people will question Bush's motives and can understand where they are coming from, I cannot understand how Moore can be considered to have made a valid contribution to the debate.
 
Surely it was more factual than Bush's film "Saving Private Lynch". You'd have thought that fabrication on its' own would've been enough to put voters off him but it seems they, like most UK horse racing punters, now accept that corruption and lies is an irreversible, and acceptable, part of the game.
 
Brian, I'm not acting as the defence counsel for Bush on this forum.

But I would have voted for him against Kerry.
 
Tel,

I'm not defending Moore or the film, but the Hitchens attack comes across as a rant. It goes on ad nauseum about how Saddam was a nasty piece, but we all know that and it was not the reason we went to war. Not once in the rant does Hitchens mention WMD as the justification for going to war.

Hitchens and his buddies are now dragging up everything and anything they can to paint Saddam as an evil monster and a danger to the world. They were not doing this before the war. They were telling us we had to take Saddam out because he could launch an attack on the West with WMD in under an hour.

The standard response from pro-Bush/Blair typs to anyone who points out that we went to war on a false premise is: 'But surely you agree the world is a better place without Saddam? What about all those people he murdered and tortured over the years. How can it not be right to have removed him?'

To me that is simply an attempt to make those of us who feel uneasy about the whole process, guilty. The inference being that we are somehow suggesting that we would rather the torturing and murder should have been allowed to continue. As Brian says, the US had no problem with his murdering and torture when he was playing ball with them. Likewise Bush and his friends seem to have no problems with Mugabe and any other number of murderous tyrants.

I don't for a second expect to change your views by the way (I know your views since the C4 days :shy:) but if the choice is between Moore and Hitchens then I know whose side I am on.

HJ
 
Well Homer J , you are fully entitled to your opinion. I disagree, as you know.

I couldn't really care less what Bush's reasons were or whether there are backhanders for his buddies. I would take out Mugabe too but it is difficult to see how anyone could justify sending more troops to their deaths in the current climate.

Who knows what history will decide, but I'd take any odds against that I'm broadly speaking on the right side.
 
Derek, I'm sure that you are right. However, I'm equally sure that he could do even worse than me.
 
Well said, Homer.

When people cast their minds back (which we're not encouraged to do by the US or the UK governments) to the Iraq-Iran war, the Ayatollah was then seen as the greatest menace to world peace/Western freedoms/choose slogan of choice, etc., etc. and our leaders of the time had NO problem in providing Saddam/Iraq with as much weaponry as he could take in order to knock seven bells out of Iran. No problem that he was torturing and repressing the Kurdish people and Shi'ite Muslims then, apparently. All of which was being made abundantly clear by Iraqis in exile around the globe, including a few dreadfully injured escaped survivors.

And, no problem, while tens of thousands died on either side, in the repulsive hypocrisy of, er, 'honouring' previous agreements with IRAN to provide weaponry it had signed up for, either. We are nothing if not honourable, see.

Sorry, but I'm afraid the self-appointed 'leader of the free world' has cried wolf so many times about threats to democracy, world peace, Western culture, family values, and the right to buy a Coke and a Big Mac whenever you want them, that I'm beyond believing one, single, tiny word from the USA ever. And not too many from our supposedly 'fair' Britain, either.
 
I think along the exact same lines as you here, krizon.

I had a large argument with my brother earlier (there's a surprise!!) about the current "elections in Iraq. I really fail to see how they are free elections in a "free country" when tanks are patrolling the streets and The USA is stating that any election of hard line Islamic people will result in the need to hold it again.

Surely the whole point of democracy is that people are free to elect whomever they chose, regardless of interference from others. This sham is nothing more than an American puppet Government. Iraq will become the de facto 51st state.

I cannot stand George W. Bush
 
I agree that Moore is a unlikeable plonker, but find myself unable to understand why only selective tyranical dictators are tumbnailed for removal and others arn't. I mean why did the Yanks leave The UK uninvaded in the 80's?
 
Terry: it would very much depend what kind of Iraqi I was. There's this wonderfully bland, broad brush-stroke being swished across an enormous country, which is, as is being repeatedly said by various tv presenters, populated by three very different people. For those who haven't got this particular picture yet, there are the Kurds, who are tribally and culturally different to 'Iraqis' (please Google, I'm not going to take up the forum with a chronicle on Kurds); there are Sunni Muslims, and there are Shi'ite (or Shi'a) Muslims. The latter two are as divided on major points of Islam as are Protestants and Catholics on issues of Christian dogma. They are, in terms of nationality, the same people, while the Kurds are not.

The Sunnis in Iraq have held the whiphand until now. They oppressed the Shi'ites and exiled the Kurds to the north, and, as we all know, infamously (as part of the ruling elite of Saddam Hussein) massacred many.

So, would I vote today? Not if I were a Sunni, since I would not consider the holding of a foreign militarily-driven election in my own country to represent what I had stood for.

Yes, possibly, if I were a Shi'ite in a Shi'ite region and could get to the polls relatively unscathed. Possibly no, if I were in a more mixed region or town, for fear of reprisal. After all, the troops can't protect themselves from ambush, so how would they protect me?

As a Kurd, almost all of whom are in Kurdish regions, yes. However, I'd be wary of how I'd fare if I ever attempted to come down from the mountains, where I'd been driven. If troops are to leave Iraq one day, everyone will expect to be 'free', and the assumption of free movement for all will be met with extreme resistance by Sunnis. Especially for Kurds, whom they detest. At least the Kurdish people have some power now, inasmuchas they're going to have self-government. What they really need is true freedom, in the creation of Kurdistan, with a serious commitment of support from friendly countries.
 
Psephologists report a lower turn-out than the 107% of the electorate who voted last time but they also say that there seems to be a pretty big swing against the party which was in power previously
 
The interim President is a Sunni Muslim - is it not using the same broad brush to assume that all Sunnis supported Saddam and would not have wished to participate . It is in their areas where the insurgents are at their strongest that intimidation has been at its worst .

I wholly opposed Bush's adventure with Blair's connivance but we are where we are and today's elections are at least a start . Lots of bloodshed and misery no doubt lies ahead
 
There are both Sunni AND Shi'ite 'insurgents', Ardross, but I've yet to hear a commentator say which side is shooting at the time! There are plenty of Sunnis killing troops and civilians, just as there are plenty of Shi'ites pot-shotting the same. The reasons are somewhat different - Sunni gunfighters because they don't want the troops to help Shi'ites realize some semblance of equality; Shi'ites because, as in Iran, they tend to be more conservative and have venerated areas, which they despise seeing desecrated by invaders. However, it won't be at all unlikely that at the same time they're hurling grenades, insurgents from both sides will enjoy casting a vote for their most favoured candidate. Some things can be a little cake-and-eat-it in the Middle East.

Don't forget that the Ba'athists were secular, and Saddam never went to the mosque (apart from when politically expedient to be seeing to do so on one televized occasion). The fact that he allowed representations of himself in statue and picture form would point anyone to his irreligious nature. There are many Iraqis who are only nominally Muslim, in the same way as there are many nominal Christians. The supporters of the Ba'athists would be such, and anti-Shi'ite, anti-Kurd, and anti Western-imposed egalitarian notions. It's unlikely they'll be voting, unless there's a pro-Ba'ath candidate. Which is, let's face it, just a teensy bit unlikely.
 
Back
Top