Farenheit 9/11

[Uncle Spielberg]

That is the best piece I have ever read. Eloquent and far removed from the usual tripe written on here.

 

[New York Geezer]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gareth Glover
He is a fat bastard and thats no lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sort of tripe?

 

[alan partridge]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gareth Glover
He is a fat bastard and thats no lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sort of tripe?

you beat me to it.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Its not tripe its true.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Its not tripe its true.

Oh?......Must be true then?

 

[m20gull]

Sorry. Been working today!

Thanks to ex Shelton Seagull for giving me an additional excuse not to go and see it. Excellent summary without bias.

We could argue about why a 30 strong coalition invaded Iraq but I don't know and neither does Michael Moore. America has previously given freely of its money and young men in support of democracy (WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam) so that could be it. It does have an interest in stable oil markets and a peaceful Mid East so that could be it too. WMD was not the cause and only Blair seems daft enough to have nailed his colours to that mast. And it's not Al Qaeda - but by the time you add all of the reasons togther that could have given Bush sufficient cause.

History will possibly tell us. What history will hopefully give us is a democratic peace loving Iraq, a stable Iran and a democratic Saudi Arabia.

 

[readingstockport]

Sorry. Been working today!

Thanks to ex Shelton Seagull for giving me an additional excuse not to go and see it. Excellent summary without bias.

We could argue about why a 30 strong coalition invaded Iraq but I don't know and neither does Michael Moore. America has previously given freely of its money and young men in support of democracy (WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam) so that could be it.
<snip>
History will possibly tell us. What history will hopefully give us is a democratic peace loving Iraq, a stable Iran and a democratic Saudi Arabia.

I really don't mean to be contentious here but the argument that America gave 'willingly' in WW1 and WW2 is increasingly beginning to piss me off.

In WW1 they arrived 2 years late responding to the sinking of the lusitania and little else. Yes they SOLD supplies to the UK during this time but they still took the money for it. If they were truly trying to support freedom and democracy they wouldn't have waited 2 years would they?

WW2 is even worse IMHO, major american corporations were actively involved in investing in Germany during the early years of the war. They were more than willing to allow the UK and Russia to fight it out, to the extent of prohibiting their citizens from joining the UK armed forces to fight Germany IIRC. Once they had been attacked, at a point when basically Germany had screwed itself (again IMHO from my readin of history) they suddenly realised a war was taking place and 'joined in'.

There is reams of documentary evidence, none of it ever challenged, that proves that Bush's grandfather was heavily involved in investijng in Nazi Germnay and Bush senior (and hence Bush junior) were the beneficiaries of a trust fund set up with money 'earned' using slave labour from Nazi concentration camps.

Lets stop pedalling this bullshit about how much the Americans gave in WW1 and WW2. They arrived both times when the war was already effectively over, the most that can be said is their belated appearance hastened the end.

I agree with the last paragraph, hopefully history will give a stable Saudi Arabia, but hang on a minute - lets just remember whcih country it was that installed the house of Saud as the rulers of that country in the first place.

This is not directed at you m20gull but this 'argument' really does annoy me.

 

[London Irish]

He is a fat bastard and thats no lie.

I believe Moore donates generously to a number of worthy causes, including GAMBLERS ANONYMOUS

I doubt whether Moore has lied. He must be able to afford enough advisers to stop him being that stupid.

PRECISELY Now if anyone else wants to withdraw this "lying" smear against Moore, that would be just FINE. PUT UP or SHUT UP on the "lies".

With this stupid distraction dealt with, we can now get back to a proper discussion about the film's merits and demerits.

Ex-Shelton Seagull has posted a superb contribution (he's on a roll after his one about German footy) and it will be interesting to hear from others how their assumptions are influenced by Moore's film.

It is no surprise that Moore looks both ways on Afghanistan, the left is deeply split on the issue of how the Taliban should have been dealt with. Afghanistan is in total chaos, the war lords and drug mafia is obviously the approved US alternative to the Taliban, let's see if that choice has the same unforseen consequences as when Reagan and Bush supported the heroic freedom-fighting Taliban against the evil Soviet empire.

 

[clapham_gull]

Strictly speaking the Taliban didn't really get it together until after the war. They capitalised on the vacuum that the subsequent civil war created.

Read recently that the war was a defining moment for Bin Laden because he saw that a amateur Army could bring down a superpower. He obviously forgot about the help of American supplied stinger missiles.

 

[m20gull]

WW2 is even worse IMHO, major american corporations were actively involved in investing in Germany during the early years of the war. They were more than willing to allow the UK and Russia to fight it out, to the extent of prohibiting their citizens from joining the UK armed forces to fight Germany IIRC. Once they had been attacked, at a point when basically Germany had screwed itself (again IMHO from my readin of history) they suddenly realised a war was taking place and 'joined in'.

America's position on WW2 was horrendous. Roosevelt was walking a tightrope between wanting to intervene on the UK's behalf, and an isolationist majority in the US. If you want to pick on anyone I suggest Joe Kennedy as a good target. For excellent wide ranging material I suggest " A man called Intrepid" about William Stevenson.

The position in 1941 was that Germany was not screwed. It was admittedly up against the weight of history in Russia, but had us on the run in the Atlantic (a battle we would have lost without tacit US support and 50 destroyers) and in North Africa. Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US, not the other way round. From then on in to 1942 the US was losing. Access to natural resources and unimpeded production supported the US to beat Japan and Germany.

Where the US "europe first" policy helped was in keeping communist Russia in only half of Europe, not all of it. "Europe first" was deeply unpopular in the US where the Pacific was perceived as the main battle.

Can we deal with WW1 in a separate thread?

 

[m20gull]

It is no surprise that Moore looks both ways on Afghanistan, the left is deeply split on the issue of how the Taliban should have been dealt with. Afghanistan is in total chaos, the war lords and drug mafia is obviously the approved US alternative to the Taliban, let's see if that choice has the same unforseen consequences as when Reagan and Bush supported the heroic freedom-fighting Taliban against the evil Soviet empire.

I just hope the US has better luck in creating a peaceful Afghanistan than we did in the 1800s.

I agree with later comments about the Taliban. I don't think the US supported the Taliban as such. But I also prepared to accept that your allies change over time. Examples include France (our oldest enemy until WW!), Germany (whose states were an ally until after the Franco-Prussian war), Italy (anti-Austria before Mussolini), Turkey, Iran, Iraq,.... Hence why I am prepared to support the extension of the EU and NATO.

 

[US Seagull]

It is no surprise that Moore looks both ways on Afghanistan, the left is deeply split on the issue of how the Taliban should have been dealt with. Afghanistan is in total chaos, the war lords and drug mafia is obviously the approved US alternative to the Taliban, let's see if that choice has the same unforseen consequences as when Reagan and Bush supported the heroic freedom-fighting Taliban against the evil Soviet empire.

I disagree, the war in Afghanistan was broadly supported by most on the left as well as the right (not everybody obviously) and was well supported by the international community.
Besides, I still see no problem with being against a war but being in favour (if the war is going to happen anyway) of doing it properly, i.e. send enough troops to get the job done.
Of course, Afghanistan is being largely ignored again now which was exactly what lead to the rise of the Taliban in the first place.

 

[m20gull]

IBesides, I still see no problem with being against a war but being in favour (if the war is going to happen anyway) of doing it properly, i.e. send enough troops to get the job done.

I agree with you and Moore on this one.

 

[clapham_gull]

Slightly off topic - but regarding in-fights and ideological disagreements within the left wing.

Peter Tatchell highjacked a demonstration by a Palestine freedom group today in London. He was highlighting the fact the Palestine Authority has been "supporting" the torture and murder of homosexual Palestinians.

Anyway, On Newsnight he got into an argument with another guest ( who was criticising his stance for daring to criticise Palestinians ) about the fact that the left has done nothing to support his campaign againt Zimbabwe.

Made the point that Mugabe has murdered more blacks than Apartheid, whilst the left sits back and does nothing whilst it was quite happy to demonstrate outside South Africa house for years etc. etc..

I think he maybe has a point.

 

[London Irish]

I support Tatchell 100 per cent, re. Palestine stuff. Same debate as in the past on Castro. Gay rights activists have the right to expose anyone on this issue, no matter if they are suffering terrible national oppression themselves. It's the same as saying you can't criticise Israel because of centuries of Christian-led holocausts and pogroms. Everyone is accountable for their actions.

Zimbabwe I reckon is a bit more complicated. The policy of land redistribution is just, but the corrupt and murderous way it is being carried out Mugabe's goon squads is not. Don't know if that's a classic bit of liberal fence-sitting by me, but it's where I am right now unless someone can enlighten me.

 

[m20gull]

Not sure I can bring myself to say I support Tatchell 100%, but oppression of any minority is wrong. If that is being supported/assisted by the Palestinian Authority then that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Zimbabwe is a tough fence to sit on, and I'm not sure you are. You have to start from a premise that the state stealing one person's property to give to someone else is OK. In the case of colonial acquired land I can see the argument that that is OK. Killing people to enable it is wrong. No fence sitting involved.

 

[m20gull]

Jews were victims of opression for hundreds of years before Christianity or Islam were invented

 

[Dandyman]

America has previously given freely of its money and young men in support of democracy (WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam).

South Korea was a corrupt police state with an appalling human rights record in the 1950's as was South Vietnam throughout it's entire artifical and corrupt existance. The US presence in Vietnam was a deliberate frustration of the right of the Vietnamese to national self-determination which had been recognised as their right at the Geneva talks which formally ended the French occupation of their country.

 

[m20gull]

I didn't intend that to mean in support of democracies. I meant democracy generally. They provided an opportunity for the US to create a bulwark against the further spread of international communism.