L
Lam
Guest
I realise that most on here will have seen it, but hopefully as it's on TV many more people will get a chance to see this excellent documentary.
oOemmaOo said:I saw it a couple of weeks ago, it was such an eye opener, someone like yerself Aste who has lived in the US might see things differently?? I would definately recommend it tho!!
Just a really good friend, whose opinion i value, told me that his arguments just doesnt seem to add up, and that he uses too much time bashing Bush while not using enough time on other real important issues. So... hm.. it will be interesting to see
It is definately a bush whacker of a film...but to be honest I watched it knowing this and did'nt worry to much about other issues as what he was saying interested me enough to keep me watching!! Definately like to hear your view on it tho!!
mafkaroo
Junior Members
Yep Farenheit 911 is a real eye-opener..
Theres a book, called 'Against all Enemies' by Richard Clarke.
If you want a history of American foreign policy and terrorism from the fall of teh Soviet Union in Reagan's time, to 911 and beyond, from a whitehouse insider, get this book.
Its an absolute fascinating read, and a lot more accurate.
Theres a book, called 'Against all Enemies' by Richard Clarke.
If you want a history of American foreign policy and terrorism from the fall of teh Soviet Union in Reagan's time, to 911 and beyond, from a whitehouse insider, get this book.
Its an absolute fascinating read, and a lot more accurate.
JPsychodelicacy
Studio Elf
He simplifies a lot of the financial dealings (he needs to - the Mafia money launderers have nothing on these guys), and also a lot of the arguments to the pont where he misses stuff, but if i remember rightly, every point made is backed up by at least one, and in many cases more than one, credible journalistic source - it just happnes that in most cases the news editors buried the information away from the front page.
J.
J.
shpongling tom
Junior Members
im not telling people not to watch it.............. but his arguments are too generalised causing his beliefs to become the very thing he opposes = generalised sensationalism
Bowling for Colombine was a brilliant movie, but i feel Moore has gone downhill ever since (especially with the latest release of 'The Music that enspired the Movie' album)
Bowling for Colombine was a brilliant movie, but i feel Moore has gone downhill ever since (especially with the latest release of 'The Music that enspired the Movie' album)
shpongling tom said:
exactly my friend's opinion.
unfortunately, i forgot to record it - so i didnt watch it. I think Koolaid has a copy though, so illtry and see it soon.
Bowling for Columbine was a masterpiece indeed... i was at my mates' house a bit early on a Saturday evening before going out, and as they took ages gettingready, i put Bowling for Columbine on,and got completely addicted. My mates ended up going out and giving me the key to the house, causei had to watch it through... amazing piece of television indeed.
morph
Forum Addict
I like it but its taken from extreme left but Goz your right at least its nice to see some propaganda from the other side!
lurk
Stunning Cunt
there is a reason for it being such a blunt instrument... the vast majority of his target audience (in america) get their news from CNN/FOX/NBC, so they are completely unaware of most of these points (due to the mood in america making it unpatriotic to broadcast them). we're lucky here in europe that we still have a (comparatively) objective TV news media.
After the first fifteen minuets I couldn't watch it as a documentary. It was more like Michel Moores cheery pick truth. More like a party political broadcast by the opposition. If he had kept his arguments more rounded and left it up to the intelligence of his audience to join the dots then this film would of had allot more impact for the reasons that mattered.
Maybe this is the dumming down we’ve heard so much about.
One of the point Michel Moore was making was that the countries in the coalition weren’t actually of great meaning and that most of the forces from these countries were American troops anyway. He then read a list of these countries but neglected to leave Britain off.
Here follows a list I found after a quick google.
Note that at the top of this list is the UK.
BRITAIN: Insisting on U.N. authorization of a military attack but can be counted on to provide troops. Prime Minister Tony Blair is President Bush's closest ally in backing military strike to oust President Saddam Hussein.
AUSTRALIA: Prime Minister John Howard, who rivals Britain's Blair in standing foursquare behind Bush, has left open the option of committing Australian troops to a U.S.-led military action, even without U.N. backing.
BULGARIA: Will grant the United States use of airspace and Sarafovo airport, currently the base for U.S. tanker aircraft involved in the antiterror war in Afghanistan.
ROMANIA: Will allow overflights of U.S. aircraft and use of air bases 1,440 miles northwest of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
BAHRAIN: Headquarters of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet and 4,200 U.S. military personnel and has raised no objection to an attack on Iraq.
QATAR: With 3,300 U.S. soldiers stationed on its soil, Qatar is allowing the Pentagon to establish a forward command center there and pre-position equipment for at least one heavy armored brigade.
KUWAIT, OMAN: Will not object to in-country U.S. forces (9,000 in Kuwait and 2,400 in Oman) participating in an action against Iraq.
ITALY, SPAIN, POLAND, NETHERLANDS: Moral and political support. Premier Silvio Berlusconi has compared Hussein to Hitler and emphasized Italy's alliance with the Bush administration. Spain said Hussein cannot be allowed to snub U.N. weapons inspectors. Polish officials have answered queries about contributions to a military strike by emphasizing Poland is "a very steadfast" U.S. ally. Dutch prime minister said Netherlands will support war to remove Hussein only if inspections prove he has weapons of mass destruction.
NO COMMITMENTS: 1991 Desert Storm coalition members who haven't made a new commitment: France, Canada, Greece, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Senegal, Niger, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Portugal, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic), Argentina, New Zealand and South Korea. Japan and Germany contributed financial support to the 1991 war. Turkey allowed use of its bases and deployed troops to Iraqi border outside war zone.
End quote
All that I can think of is that Michel Moore who makes some great films is a man who get very passionate about issue of injustice and he saw that with the Bush administration there was great injustice. No augments there. But he let the passion over ride his better film making judgment in this case.
Maybe this is the dumming down we’ve heard so much about.
One of the point Michel Moore was making was that the countries in the coalition weren’t actually of great meaning and that most of the forces from these countries were American troops anyway. He then read a list of these countries but neglected to leave Britain off.
Here follows a list I found after a quick google.
Note that at the top of this list is the UK.
BRITAIN: Insisting on U.N. authorization of a military attack but can be counted on to provide troops. Prime Minister Tony Blair is President Bush's closest ally in backing military strike to oust President Saddam Hussein.
AUSTRALIA: Prime Minister John Howard, who rivals Britain's Blair in standing foursquare behind Bush, has left open the option of committing Australian troops to a U.S.-led military action, even without U.N. backing.
BULGARIA: Will grant the United States use of airspace and Sarafovo airport, currently the base for U.S. tanker aircraft involved in the antiterror war in Afghanistan.
ROMANIA: Will allow overflights of U.S. aircraft and use of air bases 1,440 miles northwest of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
BAHRAIN: Headquarters of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet and 4,200 U.S. military personnel and has raised no objection to an attack on Iraq.
QATAR: With 3,300 U.S. soldiers stationed on its soil, Qatar is allowing the Pentagon to establish a forward command center there and pre-position equipment for at least one heavy armored brigade.
KUWAIT, OMAN: Will not object to in-country U.S. forces (9,000 in Kuwait and 2,400 in Oman) participating in an action against Iraq.
ITALY, SPAIN, POLAND, NETHERLANDS: Moral and political support. Premier Silvio Berlusconi has compared Hussein to Hitler and emphasized Italy's alliance with the Bush administration. Spain said Hussein cannot be allowed to snub U.N. weapons inspectors. Polish officials have answered queries about contributions to a military strike by emphasizing Poland is "a very steadfast" U.S. ally. Dutch prime minister said Netherlands will support war to remove Hussein only if inspections prove he has weapons of mass destruction.
NO COMMITMENTS: 1991 Desert Storm coalition members who haven't made a new commitment: France, Canada, Greece, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Senegal, Niger, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Portugal, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic), Argentina, New Zealand and South Korea. Japan and Germany contributed financial support to the 1991 war. Turkey allowed use of its bases and deployed troops to Iraqi border outside war zone.
End quote
All that I can think of is that Michel Moore who makes some great films is a man who get very passionate about issue of injustice and he saw that with the Bush administration there was great injustice. No augments there. But he let the passion over ride his better film making judgment in this case.
He failed to mention lots of countries that ACTUALLY supplied troops. He was, at least as far as i understood it, focussing on those that were said to be a part of the coalition against iraq but didn't have any troops to actually commit to the "war".
Fair point i'd say ...
Fair point i'd say ...
neat little anim tht follows the course of MM's film
http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1843&rtn=index-topten
http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1843&rtn=index-topten
Warwick Bassmonkey
Average Sized Member
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 0
But the cherries were there to be picked alright. He makes Bush look like the arrogant, incompetent, mental defective that he is.psyfi said:
psyfi said:
I don't think there's any need for me to say anything about the intelligence of the intended audience, do you?
Anyway, the film didn't work... the twat got back in. They're obviously more stupid than even Michael Moore thought.
Warwick Bassmonkey
Average Sized Member
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 0
Err... before anyone thinks I'm lumping all Americans together and calling them thick... I'm not... I appreciate that there are intelligent and unintelligent people in all nations.
i thought it started well, then tailed off towards da end. bowling for columbine was alot better
littlefish
Banned
just seen it last night. . .
pretty darn crazy place America. . .
The Bush Administration has got to be one of the saddest regiemes the World has ever seen
pretty darn crazy place America. . .
The Bush Administration has got to be one of the saddest regiemes the World has ever seen
ChrisCabbage
Forum Member
- Messages
- 10,188
- Reaction score
- 57
I've taken to watching Fox News while over here - just to discern how bad it really is.
It's bad.
Here's an example.
Apparently Bush is bringing in a rule that Evolution theory taught in Science must be "balanced" by explaining Creationism.
Saw a fox "discussion" on this last night.
Won't go into too many details, but there were basic flaws in the argument.
Fox guy argued that arguments like this have a moral dimension, and you have to give kids/people the moral arguments so that they can make their own minds up.
Moral? Bollox - that's not a moral issue, it's a religious issue.
They also missed out on the fact that being religious (read Christian), doesn't mean you automatically reject Darwinian Evolution theory.
Was banging my head on the table watching that last night.
It's bad.
Here's an example.
Apparently Bush is bringing in a rule that Evolution theory taught in Science must be "balanced" by explaining Creationism.
Saw a fox "discussion" on this last night.
Won't go into too many details, but there were basic flaws in the argument.
Fox guy argued that arguments like this have a moral dimension, and you have to give kids/people the moral arguments so that they can make their own minds up.
Moral? Bollox - that's not a moral issue, it's a religious issue.
They also missed out on the fact that being religious (read Christian), doesn't mean you automatically reject Darwinian Evolution theory.
Was banging my head on the table watching that last night.