And the argument is wrong. The film showed a very brief montage simply to remind audiences that there were innocent people caught up in it. Why is that wrong? War is not always wrong, but the decision to go to war is a grave one, and it must be made knowing with certainty that the innocent casualties are justified. He did nothing in the film, as far as I could tell, to imply that Iraq was a paradise.
I’d like to see these reports, actually. I’d also like to see in them an indication that these were ‘indiscriminate’ targets and not military targets with risk of collateral damage.
C’mon people, I know that Moore occasionally jumps to conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from the facts. But this stuff about the scenes of happy Iraqis is silly.
Think about it.
Do you actually believe that those few scenes would make anyone wth half a brain think that Saddam was a nice guy and that Iraq was a wonderful place to live?
And do you actually believe that Moore actually believed that those few scenes would make anyone with half a brain think that Saddam was a nice guy and that Iraq was a wonderful place to live?
Do you really believe that a multiple award winning film-maker, who is - politics aside - obviously extremely talented and intelligent, is so naive about human nature that he would believe that he could persuade people to believe in some sort of Saddam-topia by showing them a few quick shots of happy peaceful Iraqis?
If you don’t believe that, then you can’t possibly believe that that was the purpose of those scenes.
If you do believe that, then… well, I don’t know what to say…
Too bad we can’t edit our own posts. I’d like to remove that last line and replace it with the following:
“If you do believe that he’s that naive about human nature and what it takes to persuade people, then why are you worried about him?”
I’d like to add that I’ve heard and read a number of opinions from people who’ve seen the film and not once have I heard or seen anybody say “gee, I never realized that Iraq was such a wonderful happy peaceful place before we attacked it”
The web community at wikipedia is engaged in ongoing discussion to determine which criticisms of Fahrenheit 9/11 are legitimate. Here’s the link to the article…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11#Criticisms_of_the_film.27s_content
I notice that Steve MB is persistent in his failure to “honestly address” Moore’s statement of what he was trying to communicate through te images that he mentions.
“Willfully obtuse”
Would this phrase apply to someone who selectively omits parts of a quote because they contradict his point?
Just asking.
If you will note, Mr. Moore’s quote does not address goals. It addresses rather what will happen in pursuit of our gaols.
Shirley, you recognize that collateral damage is indiscriminate. A bomb makes no discrimination between a Baathi and a member of the Free Iraqi Forces. When a building near a target collapses, it collapses on the just and unjust alike.
So, since the quote does not address goals or intentions, I have to say, “No, Virginia, Mr. Moore is not saying that our gool in Iraq was to ‘was to indiscriminately drop bombs on little kids with kites’.”
As I write (8:40 p.m. EST), Moore is going head-to-head with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News (at the Dem Convention). Tune in!
I think my problem with it is that it’s not like he said ‘these people could be innocently caught up in things.’ It’s that he phrased it in such a way as ‘The US doesn’t give the first shit about collateral damage and will just indiscriminately drop bombs anywhere.’
If Moore had shown Saddam kissing babies or something, you might have a point. As for Potemkin Village - do you deny that these people might actually have been happy before the bombing?
IIRC, the scenes of the post-bombing destruction were shown after a clip of Rummy congratulating himself on the precision bombing. Have the Bushies ever acknowledged the civilian casualties? I’ve never heard it.
Not sure if the Bushies acknowled civilian casualties, but Moore makes this statement in his Entertainment Weekly interview:
“The New York Times reports that our air strikes that [first] week were zero for 50 in terms of hitting the targets.” (emphasis mine)
Someone with more L337 Google skills than I could probably turn up that article, I’d wager…
I’m tempted to acknowledge a touché here, but I can’t quite because there’s an important difference.
The Bush administration did not make a slick, 2-hour pro-war propaganda movie stating this and show it in theaters across the world.
The President and his administration made speeches, presented (often circumstantial) evidence, to the American people, the UN, and the world (though it was really only the American people that mattered). The nightly news may have compressed it and presented it into 5-second sound bites, but the Bush Administration did not. And if the nightly news was the only place you looked for information to form an opinion on it, that was your (bad) decision to make. And after it was presented to the American people for nearly a year, the general feeeling was, ‘Yes, this is what has to be done right now’. No, not a resounding endorsement, but an acknowledgment that sometimes hard decisions have to be made.
There was heated debate, there were protests, there were walkouts. But there was no armed insurrection, there was no (serious) talk of impeachment, and most importantly there was no mass mutiny of the armed forces. In fact their attitude seemed to be, Let us do our job.
I’ll acknowledge it, sure. I’ll acknowledge it by blankly saying, Um, yeah, and?
Anyone who, on Sept 12, 2001, did not know that in the next 5 or 10 years a whole lot of civilians around the world are going to die, there is little point in trying explaining it to them now. Do we really need to go all the way down the, “Peace in our time” road…
Christopher Hitchens wrote a detailed dissection of the movie for Slate. Of course, he’s no objective observer either. But it’s worth reading:
Agreed. With that said, I wish they had spent the billions making a slick, 2-hour pro-war propaganda movie, instead of actually going to war.
So a Bush-ism is a Moore-ism with lots of death thrown in?
Hmm, ‘willfully obtuse’. The words pot and kettle spring rapidly to mind.
You contend that Moore does not ‘honestly address’ what you have called an argument. However, if you read the question and response in full I cannot see how you can come to the conclusion that this is a) not addressed, or b) not honest, or both.
If you want to support your flat-earth analogy then you’re going to have to be a bit more elaborate in your explanation of why you think Moore is dodging the issue.
Oh, okay. I see the point now. Leading the country to war based on half-truths and deception is not so bad…But, making a 2 hour movie that contains half-truths and deceptions, that is crossing the line.
And, clearly, to the extent that people got the wrong impression about the connection between Saddam and 9/11 or when Saddam had used WMDs on his own people, it was the news media’s fault and the people’s fault. (Of course, to the extent that anyone concluded from Fahrenheit 9/11 that Iraq was a shangra-la before we invaded [which there is no evidence they did anyway], it is all the directors’ fault.)
Your argument makes perfect sense! :rolleyes:
As elucidator likes to note, the amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to be a supporter of the president these days is truly astounding.
hail Ants:
Are you saying that as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, only the American people matter, or are you saying that only the views of American people matter in deciding whether a country should be invaded?
Love it.
New York Times article transcripted (original requires payment), following commentary by the Boston Globe’s indispensable James Carroll.
This was in the little-publicized softening-up operation before the war was even declared, but clearly already decided upon no matter what We the People or anyone else thought.
The point is not about “indiscriminate targets”, despite the notable instance that the bombing of “Saddam’s bunker” included neither Saddam nor a bunker. The point is that, in every case, the presence or number of civilian casualties expected had no ultimate bearing on Rumsfeld’s decisionmaking. The limit of 30 was worse than arbitrary, the concept of a limit itself was irrelevant. A larger point is that Bush and Cheney may not have even known or cared - and if the projection was for 29 or fewer civilians, that apparently didn’t even reach civilian command attention at all.
Not long after the actual declaration of war, Rumsfeld ordered the Pentagon to stop reporting estimates of Iraqi casualties entirely. The best independent estimates are on the order of 10,000-12,000 - but that’s not any of our concern? Gee, what if we weren’t trying to liberate them and make them our friends, huh?