Fahrenheit 9/11
Jul 2nd 2004, 8:35 pm
#106
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
cut n pasted
General Sir Michael Rose, Former Commander of the UN Protection Force in Bosnia
I suspect many soldiers serving in Iraq today will find Michael Moore's film intensely irritating.
This is because for much of the film he allows his antiwar, anti-Bush and anti-big business stance to obscure the important debate: whether President George W. Bush led his country - and by default the UK - into war in Iraq on a lie and whether subsequently, in trying to impose justice, freedom and democracy on the Iraqi people by force, the Americans became so violent and brutal themselves that they lost the moral high ground for ever.
Nevertheless, Moore has mounted a powerful protest against the Bush administration, in which he uses all the tricks of the skilled polemicist - ridicule, conspiracy theory and sensationalism.
He shows terrible images of dead and dying civilians and soldiers in Iraq.
He interviews U.S. soldiers both in Iraq and in hospital in America who question why they went to Iraq 'to kill innocent civilians', and he intrudes closely on the grief of an American mother who lost her son.
I believe that this film will utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have in the credentials of George W. Bush as a decisive war leader.
For a full five minutes, Moore cruelly dwells on Bush's vacuous, tortured face in close-up immediately after he had been told about the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
The message is clear. Here is no Roosevelt, Churchill or Thatcher, but a deeply inadequate man whose mind is frozen with indecision and fear. It is a look I know well - if he had been a subordinate commander in battle I would have immediately relieved him of his command.
What emerges from this film is that America is unlikely ever to attempt such a disastrous military adventure again.
The trust of many of the American people in their leadership is destroyed and the all-volunteer Army in Iraq has run out of steam. It is now heavily dependent on the reservists who are taking much of the strain of operations in Iraq.
Many of these young people only joined the army to obtain funding for their university education. They never expected to be sent overseas for such a prolonged period of time, and - if Moore's film is a true reflection of American opinion - they will not allow themselves to be so badly misled again.
Looking beyond Moore's sensationalism, I think that his underlying message is nonetheless valid.
The war in Iraq was immoral and it has caused some Americans to behave in an immoral way themselves. Meanwhile, the wider war on terror is being lost.
Fact or fiction, everyone should see this film. I, for one, support Moore's protest.
I suspect many soldiers serving in Iraq today will find Michael Moore's film intensely irritating.
This is because for much of the film he allows his antiwar, anti-Bush and anti-big business stance to obscure the important debate: whether President George W. Bush led his country - and by default the UK - into war in Iraq on a lie and whether subsequently, in trying to impose justice, freedom and democracy on the Iraqi people by force, the Americans became so violent and brutal themselves that they lost the moral high ground for ever.
Nevertheless, Moore has mounted a powerful protest against the Bush administration, in which he uses all the tricks of the skilled polemicist - ridicule, conspiracy theory and sensationalism.
He shows terrible images of dead and dying civilians and soldiers in Iraq.
He interviews U.S. soldiers both in Iraq and in hospital in America who question why they went to Iraq 'to kill innocent civilians', and he intrudes closely on the grief of an American mother who lost her son.
I believe that this film will utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have in the credentials of George W. Bush as a decisive war leader.
For a full five minutes, Moore cruelly dwells on Bush's vacuous, tortured face in close-up immediately after he had been told about the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
The message is clear. Here is no Roosevelt, Churchill or Thatcher, but a deeply inadequate man whose mind is frozen with indecision and fear. It is a look I know well - if he had been a subordinate commander in battle I would have immediately relieved him of his command.
What emerges from this film is that America is unlikely ever to attempt such a disastrous military adventure again.
The trust of many of the American people in their leadership is destroyed and the all-volunteer Army in Iraq has run out of steam. It is now heavily dependent on the reservists who are taking much of the strain of operations in Iraq.
Many of these young people only joined the army to obtain funding for their university education. They never expected to be sent overseas for such a prolonged period of time, and - if Moore's film is a true reflection of American opinion - they will not allow themselves to be so badly misled again.
Looking beyond Moore's sensationalism, I think that his underlying message is nonetheless valid.
The war in Iraq was immoral and it has caused some Americans to behave in an immoral way themselves. Meanwhile, the wider war on terror is being lost.
Fact or fiction, everyone should see this film. I, for one, support Moore's protest.
