[quote=“Michael Moore”]The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.
[/quote]
[quote]I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe – just maybe – God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
[/quote]
[quote=“Michael Moore”]The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.
[/quote]
[quote]I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe – just maybe – God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
[/quote][/quote]
Michael Moore might be a bit cookie but he has a good point.
For a large number of these Iraqis they really believe they are revolutionists fighting an occupying force. No doubt about it. Once a large scale revolt starts against occupying powers it’s almost impossible to deal with and the occupying power will leave without having any influence on the future. I dont see evidence of this revolt going nationwide for majority in Iraq but there is some possibility.
He’s also right that if you say you support a war and vote for a president dont be surprised to be asked to contribute by the guy you put in charge. Most middle class people know that this contribution is not likely to result in any of their blood being spilt, just dollars. As long as it’s some other poor people that’s okay.
This man(Michael Moore) makes me sick, the worst was having to read his book, “Stupid White Men.” My colleague was raving about the truth and accuracy of it. I tried to stomach as much of it as I could and did manage to read the whole book. I tried to approach it with an open mind, but it’s hard when you’re dealing with drivel that he writes.
The worst thing is the people who support Moore will support him, whether he is right or wrong. The only way to discredit people like Michale Moore is to get them on TV for a debate, i.e. Gore versus Perot on Larry King Live.
My only experience of MM was “Bowling for Columbine.”
I found it frustrating. Almost as soon as he latched onto a line of thought, he let it go again. In the end, it was superficial and disjointed. He feels upset about a lot of stuff, but fails to follow up with much more than sentiment, howsoever heartfelt.
I lent the DVD to a friend who described it as: “thought-provoking.” So, I let him keep it.
Trouble is, MM’s recent pronouncements seem to have been attention-seeking and crasser than usual. With the upshot that I am starting to question even how “heartfelt” his sentiment really is.
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]My only experience of MM was “Bowling for Columbine.”
I found it frustrating. [/quote]
C’mon, any movie with Camper Van Beethoven can’t be all that bad.
I agree, MM is a bit egotistical (and, when I look at him, I always wonder how he can be that way - ). But, I thought “Bowling” raised some important questions that require our constant attention. Mainly, why is there so much violence in America?
personally i can’t help thinking that america is now so conservative that it makes people like moore appear much more controversial than they really are…in good old kiwi land where i come from his politics are basically centrist and no one would blink an eye at his stance on foreign policy (this is the country that banned nuclear warships in '84 after all). and yet the average american seems happy to demonise him as an out of control radical…i thought he comes across in BFC as a very sincere guy just out to find some answers…he is polite to everyone he encounters and never tries to preach…even to monsieur heston (mind you he digs his own grave very well without anyones help dosn’t he?)
How does a guy who has been shown to be a liar come across as “very sincere”?[/quote]
That just means he’s a good liar
I liked Bowling for Columbine (especially the South Park style animated ‘history’) but I was a bit disappointed to read articles showing how Moore had stretched the truth in various segments. Actually, even during the movie some of the statistics didn’t quite ring true in the way they were presented. I still think he’s interesting and makes some good points - just wish he could do it with reliability.
nice people aren’t they; thanks for the link flippa[/quote]
funny how you have no comment on the analysis of moore’s little spiel. moore is pretty much cheerleading for the insurgents who are killing americans and kidnapping foreigners and then goes on to state that he doesn’t want the un to help stop the bloodshed because americans need to scarifice their children in order to learn a lesson. it’s debatable whether the un could even do anything, but for someone who claims to want us troops home because he cares about the lives of our servicemen to then state that the shedding of their blood is needed to make a point is pathetic.
so what do you think about that, bear? do you agree with moore’s point that more americans need to die in order to prove a point to voters who don’t agree with moore that he was right and they were wrong?
“the worse thing is the people who support moore whether right or wrong”…substitute Bush for moore and it describes America to a tee…[/quote]
way to show your ignorance of american politics. is that what your kiwi news tells you? that all americans are right-wing wackos devoted to bush? stop reading your biased anti-american media long enough and you might realize that americans are pretty evenly divided between those who hate bush and those that like him. but what’s accouracy when you’re throwing around trite rhetoric, right?
My beef is that it didn’t really try to answer any questions - apart from using a little South Park skit. And then, finally, seemed to blame Charlton Heston for everything. It was just MM running around saying: “Isn’t this outrageous?” Well, sure - I’d probably agree with a lot of it… but he could have done that in a 30 sec ad!
I’m sorry for saying his, but I’m kinda chearing on the forces that want the Americans out too. I wish it didn’t have to come to killing for them to win, but I’m not there. I am sure they see the worthyness of fighting much more than I can appreciate.
As far as the comments made concerning Moore on the link suggested earlier, I can see some pretty weak evidence for argument made in their own case such as:
“To prove my point, let’s do a completely unscientific test using Google news. Searching for the string “dead marines” yields 364 results. “quagmire” yields 1830. “Kill ratio”, however, yields five, none of which are about Iraq. The string “building schools” iraq gives us 147 links, with just as many negative articles as positive ones. So, where is this massive display of pro-war propaganda that Mikey speaks of? I can’t find it anywhere. I wish the media were more on our side, but after doing everything they could to predict a quagmire they’re now working feverishly to prove themselves right.”
This does not prove a point! And YES, it is purely inscientific.
Battling an argument made for Moore’s lack of insight is someone with a lack of insight.
Then it gets purely slanderous:
“Ah, yes. Now we get to the crux of Mikey’s hypocrisy. Note that he’s got guys “working for him” in Iraq. In other words, Mikey didn’t have the balls to go to Iraq himself. He’s more than willing to openly hope for the defeat of America (and by implication the deaths of American servicemen) but he’s too much of a gutless coward to haul his fat ass over there himself. As much a tool as I think Sean Penn is, at least he had the guts to go to Iraq twice to see for himself what’s going on. Mikey’s going to make a movie, the basis of which is Iraq an George Bush, and he couldn’t even go over there and film it himself.”
This review as I see it is almost purely personal. I see little to persuade me of any impartial critisism on behalf of this writter
Also, when Moore talks about the turkey farm, I believe he was refering to the reference made about Gadafe’s turkey farm in the discussion with Bush and the using of the example as a reference to Iraq.
It truely depends on how you read his piece and of what frame of mind you are in, but I suggest you ask Moore if your not sure of his comments.
Yes perhaps Moore should be clearer in his writting, but I don’t see that he said anything out of line at all.
Anyway as I always suggest. If you don’t like someones comments then don’t get upset. You aren’t forced to listen. And if you don’t like being preached to then think twice before preaching to others. Do your own research and fight your own wars.
I don’t think that’s true. Part of the film explored American mainstream media’s focus on the sensational, and usually violent, news stories, and how such focus has fostered a high level of fear in America. Moore also compared this aspect of American life with that in Canada. You may disagree with his approach or the answers he arrived at, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that he didn’t try to answer the questions he raised.
Moreover, part of the purpose of a film of this type is to raise questions and bring attention to an issue that the filmmaker feels is important. Is it really his responsibility to provide the audience with a definitive answer?
“but what’s accouracy when you’re throwing around trite rhetoric, right?”
um well i think the little website you’ve introduced us to is the master of trite rhetoric there flippa…and as to my anti-usa media…well i use the internet and haven’t lived in NZ for years so i read all media…just that it’s pretty obvious that mainstream american media is so biased against anyone such as mike moore that it’s not worth reading…i prefer pinko liberal rags such as the guardian:
Sure - that was what i was referring to in the phrase “south park skit.” he did suggest that America was something like a ‘culture of fear’ and that was responsible for high gun crime rates.
But it is precisely this kind of vague idea that MM likes to play with. Some unquantifiable ‘fear’ is responsible. I thought it was very weak. I also thought it was a misrepresentation of US ‘culture’ to an absurd extent.
Not at all. And i understand that he is for the most part merely bringing the issue to people’s attention. However, this was why I personally did not like the film because I thought he did little more than bleat and, after all, as you say [my italics] only:
I think there would be nothing Moore would like better than to answer to questions that he brought up in his documentary. The purpose of his documentary being to highlight the problems with violence and only suggest the reason being fear itself. He did after all ask peoples opinions all through his film. However as you say, this leaves the point unanswered. I can’t answer it either although I do suspect the reason for violence brought by Americans to Americans and others is out of marketed fear as Michael suggested. But it isn’t always the case and so one cannot call it a deffinite answer, more like an observation that is meant to will further thought into the issue. I quite liked the fact that Michael didn’t answer all the problems in his film. I like the idea of people thinking for themselves and not being bred to be lazy in accepting other peoples teachings as truth. I find it refreshing whenever someone tries to educate free thought as opposed to a CNN style/type education.
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Sure - that was what I was referring to in the phrase “south park skit.” he did suggest that America was something like a ‘culture of fear’ and that was responsible for high gun crime rates.
But it is precisely this kind of vague idea that MM likes to play with. Some unquantifiable ‘fear’ is responsible. I thought it was very weak. I also thought it was a misrepresentation of US ‘culture’ to an absurd extent.[/quote]
I agree that he showed the U.S. in an absurd manner, but some of the things that go on in the States are rather absurd. The film had a dark comedic slant to it and absurdity was a tool Moore used to make his point.
). But, I thought “Bowling” raised some important questions that require our constant attention. Mainly, why is there so much violence in America?