Fahrenheit 9/11 (SPOILERS)

[PsionTen]

I really didn't want to comment on this film until I saw it and I just got back from the theatre tonight. All I can say is that you don't really "watch" this film so much as "experience" it. Fahrenheit has a much different feel to it(at least to me) than Roger & Me, The Big One, and even Bowling for Columbine. It may be because Moore has put less of himself in this film than in others or it may be that the issues are just more serious this time around, I don't know for sure.

In any case, I don't want to talk about all the other stuff that's going to be debated about this movie (i.e. whether Bush was portrayed accurately, whether Moore had his facts straight...etc.), because none of that is really what makes Moore's films so unique. What makes his films stand out is their themes. Other than the late Stanley Kubrick, I don't think there is a director that does a better job of establishing and weaving a single theme throughout a movie. Even when Moore goes into the ties between the Bush family, the Binladen family and the Saudi royal family (which most critics believe is the weakest part of the film) it punches home the overall theme. Then you have the most powerful parts of the film: Marine recruiters going after poor, young African-Americans; the mother who lost her son in Iraq; the heads of Halliburton, Microsoft and other major companies having a black-tie affair to discuss how they are going to rape and pillage Iraq's natural resources... etc. -- all of which serve to establish Moore's theme.

I don't know if it's possible for people who dislike Moore to judge this film objectively, but I can't really see how anyone can say that it's anything other than a damn good film. I can see why it won at Cannes.

 

[A_Ranger]

No, what the article does is show that MM distorts the truth and makes it a lie by leaving out information so he can twist it to what he wants to to be. MM takes things out of context. I don't agree with all the rebutals, but I agree with a lot of it because unlike MM, it presents important details and puts things in context.

 

[colonyearth]

No, what the article does is show that MM distorts the truth and makes it a lie by leaving out information so he can twist it to what he wants to to be. MM takes things out of context. I don't agree with all the rebutals, but I agree with a lot of it because unlike MM, it presents important details and puts things in context.

It's all propoganda to an extent...and again I point out that you're accusing MM of doing exactly what he states and proves GWB has done since taking office.

Only one of them has the power to determine the course of world economics, politics and war. GWB must go...Kerry/Edwards '04!

I'm sorry, but though he may have taken some items out of context to some extent...his points are still factual and valid.

CE

 

[hypatia]

No, what the article does is show that MM distorts the truth and makes it a lie by leaving out information so he can twist it to what he wants to to be.

You are confusing MM with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

They started a war, for god's sake, on falsified information. THAT is distorting the truth and making it a lie to an extent that should be considered a crime.

MM is calling them on it.

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

No, what the article does is show that MM distorts the truth and makes it a lie by leaving out information so he can twist it to what he wants to to be. MM takes things out of context. I don't agree with all the rebutals, but I agree with a lot of it because unlike MM, it presents important details and puts things in context.

A_Ranger..... I must tell you that your PRIDE is turnning you BLIND. "The worst blind is the one who does not want to see"

The WHOLE world was against the war. UN inspectors ASSURED that no WMD was found in Iraq. The world community condemned the war (in this case US Government did not respect one of its own belief: DEMOCRACY.... If majority of the countries did not vote in favor of the war, than US should have abort the invasion). People were tortured in Iraq under US government acceptance. Guantanamo prisioners does not have any international agreement support. US Government did not sign the most important treaty for our children and grandgchildren, namely: KIOTO Treat.....

Bottom Line: Darkest period of US leadership

So, please, if you just not want to acknoledge your mistake, at least vote AGAINST Bush in November.... Thanks.

 

[colonyearth]

An interesting take on this from the Great Maker, himself:

From: jmsatb5@aol.com (jms at b5)
Subject: re: ot and politics: getting back to aisling on mm
To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Date: 7/8/2004 6:03:11 AM

No Thread

>But if you're going to argue for the value of dissent, then tolerance has to
>be equilateral. The alternative is the hypocrisy of "tolerating" those
>whose dissent you already agree with and rejecting dissent from those that
>you don't.

There's a misperception about how such arguments should be phrased in the
popular media, however. The problem is the attempt to create tolerance through
supposed balance...and they're not the same thing.

One person gave a great example...if Bush said the world was flat, the papers
would rush out and get other opinions, then run articles entitled "Bush,
Democrats Differ On Shape of World."

It's balance of a point of view, but it's not an accurate portrayal of the
facts.

I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a battery
of attorneys.

The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not agree
with some of those analyses.

But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of a 70%.

And I'm sorry, but to argue about the merits about Moore's film without
bothering to see it is about as asinine and ignorant as anything I've ever
seen. You can't just cite his "prose" in an ambiguous way and come to
conclusions about something you haven't deigned to see.

As Harlan says, you're not entitled to your opinion...you're entitled to your
INFORMED opinion. If you haven't bothered to be informed about something, to
be properly educated -- in this case by seeing the thing you're discussing --
then sorry, but your opinion is less than worthless. It may serve for your
amusement, but that's all.

There's the story of a group of philosophers who were sitting around debating
how many teeth were in the mouth of a donkey. A kid sitting nearby suggested
they simply go out and count the teeth. They booted him out and went back to
speculating in a vacuum because somehow that was purer.

But history has shown who was truly the ass in that discussion.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

I love it....JMS always manages to put it into words so well. Hmmmmm, guess that's why he's listed as one of the best and most influential writers in Hollywood today.

CE

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

Hi colonyearth,

Thanks to attach JMS opinion to this matter. I fully agree with you. He is a MASTER for writing and expressing thoughts.

The donkey story is exactly what some guys here in this forum, and the US government is trying to do. Just argue not wanting to see the FACTS. They rather be rethorical and confuse who are not sure about what to do in November.

 

[A_Ranger]

A_Ranger..... I must tell you that your PRIDE is turnning you BLIND. "The worst blind is the one who does not want to see"

The WHOLE world was against the war. UN inspectors ASSURED that no WMD was found in Iraq. The world community condemned the war (in this case US Government did not respect one of its own belief: DEMOCRACY.... If majority of the countries did not vote in favor of the war, than US should have abort the invasion). People were tortured in Iraq under US government acceptance. Guantanamo prisioners does not have any international agreement support. US Government did not sign the most important treaty for our children and grandgchildren, namely: KIOTO Treat.....

First of all, don't you dare assume anything about me. I agree with MM mission to try and get people to think for themselves, and to quesiton our leaders and not buy into all the propoganda.

However, in trying to do this MM is himself doing the same things our leaders do, feeding propoganda down other people's throats as well. This makes him no different. If he himself is not willing to stick to the truth (half a fact does not make something true) then his mission is undermined by his own foolishness.

I advocate being calm and reasonable, and actually bothering to dig for the truth, even though it is insanely frustrating and sometimes futile. Just because I don't agree with you does not give you any right to attack me like that. It's immature and just plain silly.

Listen to what you're saying. The WHOLE world was against this war? Are you trying to tell me that all 6 billion people on this Earth were against the war? That is the basis for a valid and reasonable arguement? Please. As far as the UN goes, they don't always have the best track record for doing anything. And, just today it was confirmed that we removed 1.8 tons of enriched uranium that had been stored by Hussein.

Furthermore, it's the Kyoto Treaty, not the Kioto Treaty. I agree with Bush's rejection of it becasue human output accounts for only 3% of the greenhouse effect. We are not making a dent in the natural cycle. Global Warming Oragnization The Kyoto treaty would have strained our economy (which has already been in trouble). We don't fully understand global warming yet, so it is not reasonable to hurt our economy (therefore hurting the average American) on an issue that does not have sufficient evidence to call for change.

The torture of prisoners was the acts of individuals. Some individuals in positions of power, yets, but even Bush (in a memo to Ashcroft) declined to use his authority to call for that. These actiosn were horrible and those that did them should be punished. But don't say it was government sanctioned, because Congress didn't sit around voting to torture people. This happened under the radar, there is not evidence to suggest it had anything to do with Bush.

Do I really now why we started this war? No, not really. Do I like Bush? No, but I will not use propoganda against him. You have no right to tell me who I should vote for. You say you want to see the truth. Then listen to the informed voices that counter MM. I'm not saying MM is wrong on everything. I don't know all there is to know on every issue, but I have presented you with counter arguments on the issues, supported by facts that contradict MM.

Don't tell me to vote for, and don't tell me I'm blind. Please, before you buy into someone's propoganda at least search around for the other arguments. Then you can make an informed decision.

 

[colonyearth]

And, just today it was confirmed that we removed 1.8 tons of enriched uranium that had been stored by Hussein.

Yes, let us please keep things calm and in proper debate. Let us not personally attack or call each other names here.

As for the above mentioned uranium...let us not suppose that this is by any means a smoking gun or proof of WMD. No one is claiming that. Here is the link to the CNN article on the matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html

This could have been used for a "dirty bomb" but was not weapons grade material. It was nuclear fuel for reactors.

By no means was it any kind of proof of WMD that Bush and Co. can point to.

CE

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

Colonyearth,

I agree with you to keep this discussion at a good level. However, it is hard to deal with someone that it is against the Kyoto Treaty using the economy as an excuse.

I have no idea how old are you A_Ranger, but to be understable your faith in Bush´s decision of not signing the Kyoto Treaty, the only possible answer for that is: because you will not last long in this planet. Read about different serious cientific literature and you will see how dangerous is the path of environment lousiness.

A_Ranger, I agree with you that not every single human being in this planet is against the war. It would not had happened in the first place. When I say, WHOLE is only to emphasize and being more dramatic. But would you say: Spain, England, Italy are in favor of US government decision? No. Only their government, they suppported GWBush stupid decision to INVADE Iraq, just because of power and money interest. The POPULATION, were against in the very first moment. I have friends in London and Madrid that can support my statement.

Somehow I feel the right of promoting "propaganda" (as you wish) in order to ask every United States of America citizen to vote AGAINST Bush..... Why? Because I am an EARTH citizen, and without much DRAMA, rather FACTS, I can say that a second mandate of this US government can really destroy any hope for future generations. Simply because US can, They have the power..... And GWBush government is crazy enough to promote a global war.... "In the name of freedom" (this Bul*s*t speach).......

I apologise if I am offending someone, that it is NOT my intention...... But I really feel that the US government is offending our lives.........

 

[KoshFan]

Za_Ha_Dum:

I'm definitely an environmentalist, and I definitely agree withe the spirit of Kyoto, but I have to say that after further study I don't like it. Why? Because it essentially says to the Third World that they are free to pollute as much as they want until technologically and economically they are level with the First World. If Europe and North America have triggered global warming, think about what'll happen if Asia, Africa, and South America start doing exactly the same thing. The Third World needs to take a short cut, but Kyoto isn't addressing that. Instead they simply build in a loophole bigger than the whole treaty.

Clinton was well aware of this. Can't blame failure to ratify Kyoto on Bush alone.


The Bush Administration is not as trigger-happy and psychotic as you make them out to be. They don't want to blow up the planet, nor do they want global war. They are perfectly happy with small wars to support their interests. Because that's what they are after: defending their interests and the well-being of their chief constituents, the corporations and the megarich. Global war isn't great for business, not in the long run.

This is reprehensible enough. I'll cheerfully vote against them; I'll even go out on a limb and say that some of them are evil men. (Not Bush himself, he's an idiot the real leaders find useful. Nor the administration as a whole, just a few ringleaders like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.) But they are not Hitler-level evil. They are not genocidal. Should they have control of the most powerful military and one of the strongest enconomies on the planet? Of course not. Should they all be summarily shot and cast into the depths of Hell? I won't support that either.

Forgive me, Za_Ha_Dum, but this is what I hate most about politics. I can't stand vilification, and I'll turn on my own allies if they do it. I am beginning to worry more about polarization in this country than Bush getting reelected.

 

[GKarsEye]

I am beginning to worry more about polarization in this country than Bush getting reelected.

That's two sides of the same coin. Look into their campaign tactics and the rhetoric of the powerful men that support them.

 

[hypatia]

It certainly does seem that things are far more polarized now than they were during Clinton's administrations. And polairzed over much more fundamentally important issues like starting wars to protect your special interests.

It makes the Monica L. thing seem like child's play, doesn't it?

 

[A_Ranger]

Colonyearth,

I agree with you to keep this discussion at a good level. However, it is hard to deal with someone that it is against the Kyoto Treaty using the economy as an excuse.

I have no idea how old are you A_Ranger, but to be understable your faith in Bush´s decision of not signing the Kyoto Treaty, the only possible answer for that is: because you will not last long in this planet. Read about different serious cientific literature and you will see how dangerous is the path of environment lousiness.

Thank you for once again assuming thigns about me. How about I tell you rather than you telling me what I think and feel?

First of all, I care just as much for this planet and the future of humanity as anyone else. But, I have read enough credible scientific reports to come to the conclusion that our co2 emissions are not hurting the world in any significant way. From Iian Murray, specialist in global climate change and environment science: "Most scientists agree that it will do little to reduce forecast temperature rises (temperatures will be 0.15 degrees C lower than they would be without Kyoto in 2100."

Most of the changes described in opposing reports do not have evidence to suggest anything other than natural changes. The climate is a complex thing we do fully understand.
"The records show that changes in global temperature do not always follow changes in atmospheric CO2 levels."
"Natural climate changes can occur rapidly."
"We have at least 25 years to research this issue before CO2 emission cuts need to be considered."
These quates taken from the Marhsall Institue.

"In 1996 DRI reanalyzed the impact on the economy of a variety of carbon reduction policies and found they would reduce overall GDP by $100 billion to $250 billion dollars annually in 1987 dollars. In current dollars, this would mean $500 to $1,500 per year in lost production of goods and services for every man, woman and child in the country.

The same DRI study found that job losses resulting from the treaty would average between 520,000 and 1.1 million per year, depending on whether the CO2 emission goal was 1990 levels or 10 percent below 1990 levels.

A study by Consad Research Corporation found that by the year 2000 some 600,000 Americans would lose their jobs due to policies imposed to meet treaty commitments, and job losses would rise beyond 1.6 million by 2005.

More than 5 million additional jobs would be at risk due to these policies, with Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan facing the greatest job losses."
These quotes taken from the NCPA.

The economy is not an excuse. It is a reason not to make a rash decision based on inconclusive reports. As quoted above, we have plenty of time to further research the issue to get a better understanding. I fully support this and I hope we continue to invest in this research. If a majority of scientists happen to eventually agree that co2 emmision cuts must be taken, then I'll support that.

To answer you, I'm 20 years old, soon to be a gloriously hungover new 21 yeard old. I work a seasonal job during hte school year but right now it's summer and I still haven't found a job. The job market already is bad enough, and in I will soon be graduating and entering the full time job market. I will be a the bottom of the totem pole. It is rediculous to support a treaty that will significanly hurt the world's economy, possibly losing me a job or job opportunities for something that doesn't have sufficient evidence to support it.

Now, you make a lot of statements without anything backing them up. If you really care that much, why don't you calmly and and reasonbly argue your side with supporting facts and evidence?

I appreciate your apology. If you want to argue a side, then please argue your side without invalidating the other person's opinions/feelings. Becasue that is offensive. Stick to reason and truth.

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

If you want to argue a side, then please argue your side without invalidating the other person's opinions/feelings. Becasue that is offensive. Stick to reason and truth.

I do also appreciate yours and others opinions and keeping in a civilized discussion.

Your last answer is impossible to be reached. The TRUTH. In the politician world it is hard to know the exact and entire truth. As pointed by KoshFan, I fully agree that GWBush is NOT the worst. Actually JMS showed us in the metaphore of Londo's keeper (Season Five), that the power usually is conducted by somebodyelse rather the Emperor, President or Minister. I agree to say that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others are the "keepers" of GWBush. But, even though this parallel is valid, the situation is completely different. Because Londo was forced to have the keeper in his body, and GWBush welcome "keepers" to work with him.

People around the world (at least some friends of mine from: Chile, Peru, France, Brasil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, USA and England) believe that GWBush policies are quite similar to HITLER´s. His government is PROMOTING fear in american citizen, in order to be intolerant with foreigners (specially middle east people),and therefore support his "war campaign".

Michael Moore? I believe he is ok. If nobody does the job he is doing, so, who will? CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC? No.....Media is working with the "establishment" As JMS suggested in B5 and as we can see in real life. Media is becoming another tool of all governments. Does not matter whether is comunist, capitalist, socialist.... They have a symbiotic relationship, MEDIA and GOVERNMENTS. Help each other. So now, we see Michael Moore who is pointing many failures in our societies, and this is very unconfortable for many people.

It is really a pitty to see, everywhere, how citizens are disappointed with their leaders. Our societies, unfortunatelly, and this is a consequence of the CAPITALISM establishment (Please do not assume I am a comunist fanatic), are becoming more and more pragmatic. Money comes first. Ain´t matter how. So corruption is growing, people get married based on how much material benefits I can get from him/her, and on and on.....

Ok.....I went too far And this should be a talk to be around a table drinking beer or whatever you like... I hope someday I can "hang out" with you guys....Hopefully it will be during Kerry´s mandate....Thus, soon, very soon

Take care....

PS: Forgot to mention about environment. I understand the risk of having people being unemployed because of Kyoto Protocol ideas. But, WE HAVE TO TAKE OUR FIRST STEP.

Just using common sense I understand that the petroleum business will suffer of unemployment. But new energy areas would be created, generating new jobs opportunities

 

[Jade Jaguar]

A_Ranger, the fact that a couple of right wing websites don't believe in global warming doesn't over come the vast majority of serious scientists who believe it is a fact. Anyone should be able to see it is a fact. The ice caps are losing ice tens of thousands of years old. The permafrost is melting, and many glaciers are gone, or nearly so.

Kosh Fan makes a good point about Kyoto, in that it didn't cover the third world. But, Kyoto was only supposed to be the beginning, where the largest producers of CO2 agreed to reduce a bit, and stop the increases. And that stuff about job losses, and the economy is total BS. Kyoto would have been an incredible stimulus to our economy, requiring new goods and technologies to meet its requirements. Perhaps instead of buying soon-to-be-obsolete DVDplayers, we would have been buying far more energy efficient cars, with the money we made in factories producing equipment needed to clean up power plants, and other factories. Once the first world showed it was serious, the second round of agreements would have required the new low-emission technology they were producing, to be used in any new industry built in the third world.

 

[KoshFan]

So if we all had to buy new stuff to accord to Kyoto it would be good for the economy? Perhaps -- but as I see it, all that would mean right off the bat is that we wouldn't have that money to spend on other things (and for some of us money is tight indeed). If we're required to scrap all the old polluting things and replace them, that's not creation of wealth. That's just swapping up.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

However you look at it, it is more products, more work for more people, and more business. That is generally considered good for the economy, unless you're a right winger, and don't want to be pushed into progress Buying more consumer goods is usually "trading up." So, for a change, while being materialistic, we also help the Earth. Nothing wrong with that, except we're not going to do it.

Back in the early 70s, with the oil embargo, rising fuel costs, and new emissions regulations, US car makers drug their heels, and fought progress every inch of the way. Their 'method' of cleaning up emissions was to tack on all sorts of gadgets, dragging down fuel economy. The Japanese, on the otherhand, re-engineered their cars to reduce emissions by burning fuel more efficiently, and producing better gas mileage. Japanese car sales in the US, previously rare, soared, and they captured a big chunk of the market, which Detroit will never regain, even after they finally did actually improve their cars. If we had any real business sense, we wouldn't let that kind of thing happen again. We, the US, would take the lead, instead of kicking and screaming like babies, and being left behind once again, as we surely will be, due to "conservatives'" resistance to change, and progress.

 

[Decal]

Well I just watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and it is very tough to refute the facts since he rarely states anything unless it a slam dunk fact or he prepositions it by he theorizes , then everything else is said by someone else, very convenient . But the very core of it is the manipulations and association games. Its like he claming he has Bingo when he manipulated and folded his bingo sheet when he actually only has 2 or maybe even 3 dots in the same line. Very first example is the fox news declaring bush a victor , when they had actually like other networks declared it for Gore, but Moore doesn’t go into the fact that those other networks had declared the contest a hour before the polls had actually closed in parts of Florida. Then going on how person part of fox vote thing was a member of the bush family . What dose this have to do with the price in tea in china? Fox doesn’t control our elections, or count votes they were just reporting what they heard from someone else who was in charge or closer to those in charge.

Next example is the nice video clip of the report about the votes counted anyway would show gore was the winner, when later that was determined to be false.

The 42% vacation time very nice but would like to see a comparison to other presidents , Clinton, know Eisenhower is famous for more often being found on a golf course than in the white house (and i would consider him one of our better presidents) How much of a difference for Bush to do his work from camp David, or His ranch than from the white house. What dose he have in the white house he can't have at those places especially Camp David a long time Presidential retreat. Compared against say Clinton running around Martha vineyard and renting a cottage. Only thing I could honestly think of is the communication lines for the white house and proximity to talk face to face with senators and ambassadors but with wonders of modern technology that can take place anyway. Hell seen stuff on how Air force 1 is practically a mobile white house everything the white house has is there. So its a NONE ISSUE

The other fact of going in after the first plane then waiting 7 mins , while their was no clue what exactly was going on after the first plane. Though Moore quick to point out it was site of a previous terrorist attack but that is drawing dots. Then the 2nd plane happened and he waits 7 mins , can you say exactly you wanted him to do in those 7 mins? He not going to be able to do much the chain of command would of negated what ever 7 more mins of quick thinking. Hell read somewhere how Cheney was ordering a craft that was heading to Washington to be shot down and the air force never did it after 20 mins , turned out it was a medic vac helicopter. So what exactly do you want?
Then Moore talks about the security briefing and how bush may of not read it. And interprets the report for the viewer when the actually report isn’t nearly as cut and dry. Just claiming the possibility for attack on a airport, and something more seasonal as a hijacking to demand the release of a prisoner, sounds almost like regular terrorist stuff to me then. And then there is Moore issue of him not reading the report but on his own website he says Bush had read the report that why he should have been more concerned about the first plane.

NOTE: It should be emphasized that at the time Bush was notified of the first plane attack, he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB). He was also aware, of course, that the World Trade Center had been historically a target for terrorist attacks. He nonetheless went ahead with this photo opportunity in a school fullof children.

The Bin laden family stuff, while , in my part of the country there is a well known politician who was named the president of Umass, Named Billy Bulger, and maybe you heard of his separated brother a bit better called Whitey Bulger , just one of the most wanted men on the FBI wanted list. Now Billy took some heat lately and eventually had to drop his umass presidency since he pleaded the 5th to a couple grand jury inquiries but after what a couple decades. And the bin Ladens is A BIG FAMILY.

Now there is the Bin lauden Saudi Arabia and Bush connection, Firstly talking how the 240 Billion(edit: sorry its 1.4 billion) to Bush, but wait a min none of the Bushes are Billionaires oh wait Moore, said and FRIENDS . Then you must ask what are friends ? members of his cabinet?, The caryle group? But wait a min the caryle group has connection to every power broker out there Clinton , George Soros and so on. Now in the end , all of this is really a fact that Bin Laden and Saudis are some of the wealthiest people around have invested and spread their money all over, its very hard to find something with out connection to Saudi/Bin Laden/ Caryle group money including Disney , Moore himself and so on. Its like playing 7 degrees of separation . Moore has sort of made mention of the fact that how much saudi had invested in the united states.

IN the end we as the united states sort of want this investment , it Lets the Saudi and their oil interest be a double edge sword, if they squeezed the united states on oil they hurt their investments. The investments in the end can and dose bring in more money than oil and its also more entertaining almost playing lottery for someone with such wealth as these families. It just further intertwines us with the Saudi making sure they don’t do anything bad to us, now will give it also hurts us in two places, instead of just one but honestly believe the united states size and population can deftly advert the danger of this intertwination better than the Saudis.

Then there is Moore trying to connect Taliban to bush by stating they visited texas while Bush was governor of that state. Since when dose a governor deal with international politics, especially if its dealing with a company business from another state. Wouldn’t it be more important to look at who the president at the time and note that Afghanistan was on a terrorist list so no business deal could be made so Unical and the Taliban was trying to change presidential decision to remove them from the list. Since when did a governor had anything to deal with this. Now question is its been nearly 2 and half years since we taken over Afghanistan and there is no pipeline and no plan for pipe line. Though the afghans would love one to just have the flow of money coming in for just having a line of pipes crossing their country and collecting the money from it.

There is others stuff that irked me but those are the big fact based thing , pretty soon afterwards it’s a knee jerk reaction to Lipscomb and trying to plead to more primitive emotions than actually thought and consideration.

Moore and the media , well Moore claims on how the media doesn’t report these facts . But almost everything Moore has said has come from some other media report either being a fraudulent report, distorted and so on. He just wants to draw attention to ones he feels should be drawn to and leave out the ones he doesn’t. Only bit he may have is some of the stuff he got was taken from the Guardian and the bbc while the American news didn’t cover.

Referring to JMS comment well then Moore must be a ass for displaying what he thinks about pre Iraq when he has never visited the country, talked to Saddam or anything. Maybe he should speak to some Iraqi’s like them , or maybe him .

On the global warming and Kyoto , we still do not understand everything that going on with the environment. And most likely if we are causing damage we are not going to find a alternative other than going back to more primitive things, and THAT IS NO ALTERNATIVE. IN science there is 2nd law of Thermodynamics and Entropy to make something more orderly or energized you have to take some order from another system. So for us to have energy and advancement we have to take some orderliness and energy from something else to put it in our own system to advance. Just look at alternative energy source than fossil fuels which are nearly some of the most efficient cost/space/ power wise. Solar and wind power takes a lot of space for the power is needed, so dose clear cutting areas or taking up large amount of space with solor panels or windmills for the energy that practical?, now we can make the solar panels more efficient but the suns radiation is not all that much per foot. Water ?, we flood vast areas leave others in draught and other causes. The best option I know is Nuclear though that has been demonized , for mainly out of ignorance and fear. Gas /oil power is cheap efficient for bang for buck , and the world as a system is rather large system that takes a lot of time and effort to actually considerably effect. A lot of the global warming stuff as far as scientist just comes from the study of Venus and seeing that as global warming gone wrong, but the atmosphere is far worse there than we are even near. So most scientist state there is global warming but it’s a minority but vocal minority that claim that its humans causing global warming. The effects of the melting ice cap is inconsequential their could be other sources say like solar flare activity. The earth has been much cooler and hotter than this before with out human intervention. In the end the burden of proof falls on those trying to claim humans are effecting it , and all they have is certain gases can cause a green house effect and look , some human activities release these gases. And then they try to look and show a symptom being the melting ice caps. But they ignore the properties of scale.

On the new jobs and stuff and creation if we try to change our system. Dose that really create jobs, are just causes forceful relocation and retraining to do something else? We lose the jobs of people who work in the power plants and mining and what do they do afterwards they probably aren’t going to be able to be retrained to do something for the new energy source. Then also should humans waste effort on developing these things right now when their hasn’t been clear proof its needed. When the time and effort could be used on other tasks that help advance ourselves , and probably lead to better solutions. (referring to space exploration, Nano technology and so on. )

Finally just feel should state my feelings on Iraq and the war. I will say Bush has done a pretty bad job of trying to express the reasons for this war and trying to sell it. But in the end I would say this war had to happened and probably should have been finished back in Persian gulf war 1 . Though I leave that to Bush Sr hoping that he done enough damage that Saddam would hang himself so America wouldn’t have the mess of clean up and deal with the ugly PR of the high way of death and American slaughtering Iraqis. This war should of happen honestly during Desert Fox when Saddam threw the weapon inspectors out in the first place but all Clinton did was lob a few cruise missiles and bomb from the air something he was good at . It had by sheer lucked worked in Kosovo but Saddam had been duged in better. There is little doubt that if Saddam had the capability of doing harm to America and it interests he would of. And if we let him wallowed on the vine he would try to rebuild and strike but Iraq it self would suffer. More Iraqi’s had died from the embargo and Saddams reactions to the embargo than the war itself. History should of taught us Embargos don’t work against a vicious dictator it’s the peasants and the downtrodden that feel the pinch and they have no power to overthrow the dictator if he abusive enough.

 

[GKarsEye]

Dude- paragraph breaks, seriously. You're making a lot of good points but it hurst my eyes.

I just saw this thing a couple nights ago.

Moore's problem is that he is no smarter or more clever than the average Joe who reads the newspapers and comes to grand conclusions based on his/her previous prejudices. The only difference is that he's a good film maker.

A lot of the conclusions and connections made in the first half of the film were half-assed, if not bullshit. It worries me that people will focus on what's missing and not what's there and then go to the other extreme- "If Moore is wrong, than Bush must be great!" which of course is also absurd.

Moore does what I don't like about too many liberals- we have the truth on our side, but he has to twist shit around FOR NO GOOD REASON.

As a filmmaker, he is skilled. The use of music (anyone catch the Cocaine riff when Bush's name came up on that National Guard report?), editing, camera angles, and humor are first rate.

The best thing about the movie is showing the consequences of war, which, sadly, people STILL do not understand, and this sort of footage should be shown everyday, in schools and offices across America, a country that's still too callous about sending our young men and women to kill and get killed and other countries.