Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    363
    Anduril, first of all, your "eight points" in support of the war is very well-written and researched, and I agree with much of what you say. Michael Moore does tend to simplify things and present only one side of the argument; I think he intentionally tries to be inflamatory sometimes (all the time?) in order to promote dialogue. In that sense, as has been pointed out in several reviews, he's not being particularly faithful in his attempts to create a true documentary. But his films, at their best, provide another much needed source of information for mainstream audiences to form opinions about their elected policymakers.

    Any insinuations in F911 that the Saudi government was directly involved in the terrorist attacks or that the Bush Administration had advanced knowledge is bogus. That's the stuff of conspiracy theories. But the film does a good job of detailing the extensive relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family, and it's certainly enough to make one uneasy. On the morning of 9/11, the Carlyle Group, a group of ultra-rich investors including G.H.W. Bush and Bin Laden's half-brother, was meeting in Washington D.C. As Moore points out, these guys aren't out to rule the world per se, they just want to make loads of money. And, they're heavily invested in defense companies, so the ensuing war escalations benefited them greatly. Indirectly, Bin Laden made his half-brother a much, much richer man. That's not the stuff of conspiracy theories, but it's still discomforting. Also, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and we weren't allowed to interview their families after the attacks. I'm glad to see these facts pointed out in the film.

    I don't believe the one true intention of the Bush Administration was to invade Iraq to capture its economic spoils. That's simplistic. As you point out, there was also the hope that the "liberation" of Iraq would have a "domino effect" throughout the Middle East. That's something that's going to take years to see. The tenuous stability in the region is in large part a result of the corrupt, autocratic, and hypocritical regimes there. Reform, or a move towards democratization, in the region can be seen as an important step towards promoting stability there and bringing peace to the rest of the world. The biggest concern I had was whether such need for reform required the out-and-out invasion of the Iraq, including the "shock and awe" bombing campaign. That seemed to do more harm than good.

    Unfortunately, the Bush Administation has not been honest with us in its justification for the war. The initial justification to invade was based on an "immediate threat" due to Saddam's WMD. Nothing was found; you say that he possibly had time to move everything to Syria. That still doesn't explain the claim made by Bush (based on British intelligence) that Iraq had imported high-grade uranium from Niger. This turned out to be a fabricated fact. The Bush Administration had several opportunities to refute this information and they didn't do so. Bush included it in his 2003 State of the Union address as one of the reasons why it was immediately necessary to invade Iraq. So, you can see the cynicism towards Bush & Co. and the lack of trust in what they say?

    I don't know how you can think the American news organizations are "liberal", whatever that means. I think they're so sterile and timid, due to business interests of their parent companies, that they completely miss out on their journalistic opportuntities (and obligations). Unfortunately, it's come to the point where only Michael Moore is providing the mainstream audience with these images they can't find elsewhere.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    RE: Your second paragraph... sure, it might be a little discomforting but, on the whole, it does nothing to argue against the war in Iraq. It might be a reason to lament the imperfections of capitalism or the sins of greed that make it turn; or, perhaps that money plays such a key role in the American politics. But, that's about it. It's no argument against the Iraqi war or the war on terrorism and certainly should not give Americans a reason to take Kerry over Bush; the former just as much caught up in the world of the rich and richer.

    The Bush administration did make errors in its argument to the world and the American people. Some of these errors involved overstatement, mis-statement, and, also, poor or outright faulty intelligence. Incidentally, the initial justification for war was regime change not WMD. It became WMD once Colin Powell and Tony Blair had convinced Bush to seek a second resolution at the U.N., which initially Bush, under the advice of Cheney and Rumsfeldt, had not wanted to do. In any case, Colin Powell's evidence, presented to the U.N., while containing some intelligence errors, has largely been corroborated by David's Kay report and the ongoing work of Iraqi Survey Group under Charles Duelfer; certainly the connections between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda are also confirmed. I provide links to this information in my eight points post in the "Eve of Destruction" thread.

    RE: Your last paragraph... I agree with everything but the last sentence, though I stand by my claim that they have tendency to swing to the left.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    Quality Suffered Under Time Pressure

    Unlike for Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) was not as tight nor as polished - it was boring in places and didn't quite have the consistent pacing that Bowling for Columbine...thus in my mind, Michael Moore sacrificed some integrity of production values in order to get this movie out in time for the Canne's Film Festival.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    363
    To continue on this thread as well...

    The big question I have now, as has been discussed here, is how the events in Iraq will affect the future of the Middle East. Will "democracy" in Iraq cause the other autocratic regimes in the region to falter or implode, as the neo-cons in America believe? Will the "shock and awe" of the U.S. bombardment instead cause a groundswell of anti-American sentiment that will bolster Islamic fundamentalism?

    Long, in-depth article in the latest New Yorker about events in Egypt. Definitely worth reading if you're interested in this area:

    GOING NOWHERE
    by DAVID REMNICK
    In Mubarak’s Egypt, democracy is an idea whose time has not yet come.
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040712fa_fact1

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    It is a big question... we'll have to see but don't expect it to happen tomorrow. These things take time. As Paul Bremer recently commented, "People forget it took us 12 years to write our own Constitution. It wasn't very pretty around here between 1776 and 1787."

    Thanks for the link.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    363
    It certainly will take time. Another thing I'm wondering is how safe it is to travel in Islamic countries now as an American. I went to Morocco as a teenager, went shopping in the bazaar in Fez. Not sure I would want to wander into that market now. Kinda sad, really. Possibly Egypt is safe, they realize the continuing importance of the tourism money. I think I'll be staying out of Iraq for a few years...

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Its all relative. Certainly, travelling in the Mid-East is not as safe as Europe. But, really, its not that bad even in Iraq. How many of the Americans presently in that country who are not wearing an army uniform have been killed? Maybe 1%. I'd bet that's even a high figure.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •