Please everyone go see Michael Moore's movie! ("Fahrenheit 9/11") - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

Please everyone go see Michael Moore's movie! ("Fahrenheit 9/11")
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: taly2001

At this point, I feel, you either like Michael Moore or you don't. I happen to think he serves a useful purpose in society and by and large I like him.
it would be nice if he could shy a few votes away from Bush. At times meandering, and at other times acerbically funny, 9/11 is not so much about that fateful day, though that's covered; it's not even about the occupation in Iraq, though that's covered too. Simply put, this film centers on the topic of just how unfit George W. Bush is to run this country.

Whatever your personal political beliefs are, that's frankly a valid question. Here's a man who never really did anything at all in his entire life, and now he's spearheading a massive effort to do nothing more than change the very fabric of our society. For better or worse is up to the view of the beholder, but certainly for Mr. Moore it's for the worse, and he makes a chilling and compelling case that you ought to at least think of things in that way too. I don't want to give away too much of what's in the film, because Moore makes his case a lot more strongly than I ever could. But if some of this movie doesn't alarm and/or scare you, then you're either a die-hard republican or you're just inhuman.

Moore mixes satire with hard hitting journalism (six separate fact checkers employed in the film leads me to believe, contrary to what the conservatives say, Moore's on the ball here) and creates a heady argument that this nation has allowed itself to be scared into going very seriously awry. Some of the sharper moments include a brilliant use of the `Greatest American Hero' theme (possibly the very height of irony, ever) and a section of the film devoted to a very patriotic woman from Moore's hometown of Flint who lost a son in Iraq. There are a wide variety of truly frightening moments in the film (and again, if they're not, there's just something wrong with you)
Trouble is, the people who really need to see this film won't. people like anyone out there who think a vote for Nader is even remotely a good idea; people who aren't dyed-in-the-wool republicans who have questions about where the country is going. The people who really NEED to see this film never will, Moore's definitely preaching to the converted, and I think it would be a great thing if he was able to wake up even a small segment of the population with this, but I doubt, sadly, that he will.

When I saw the trailer for this film a few weeks ago, a woman in the theater shook her fist at the screen and growled, `That's all bull----!' And a lot of people think that way. A lot of people have been scared into thinking that way, and frankly, Michael Moore's not going to shake them from that fear. I think it's noble that he even attempted to, and I applaud him for it. But most people in this country are too rich or too self-absorbed or just too dumb to care what's going on. More than two hundred years ago, Ben Franklin said `Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither the liberty nor the security.' And it's even more true today than it was then.

Before you decide if you should see this film, ask yourself one simple question: is your country better off than it was four years ago? If you answered yes, then you probably won't appreciate this film. If, however, you answered no, or even I'm not sure, than you should take the time to see this movie and see for yourself some of the reasons why you answered the way you did.
You cannot see this movie and still vote for Bush. I don't care what your party affiliation is.

Posted by: Khashyar

Lena and I are going to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Los Angeles tomorrow (Sunday)...

I like to expose Lena to American politics

Khashyar

Posted by: taly2001

ok got it. Off topic chat.

Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Taly...

I regularly try and put posts in their most suitable category...

It was nothing specifically about your post

I think that it keeps the forum more organized if people can find posts based on the category where they are placed.

I'm actually excited about seeing Moore's film and evaluating it for myself.

Khashyar

Posted by: Pin Boy

hello taly,

you shouldn't hold back when you're giving an opnion like this. don't sugar coat it, tell us how you really feel

not always able to tell tone of voice in email, but i am only kidding. i am not a GB fan myself and agree with much of what you say.

by the way, you say it very well and have a good writing style.

pin boy

Posted by: taly2001

Pin Boy,

that's exactly how i feel. I some facts before but nobody has ever assembled the whole picture for me as Moore did. He definitely has an agenda but i truly see and support it.
I laughed. I cried. I got angry. I became aware. I was entertained. And the time just flew by. Michael Moore reminds me of Columbo in his understated low key approach that is never in your face but always dead on target. This film is important. How many movies can you say that about?? Everyone on this planet should see this movie if for no other reason than to be part of the national debate. This film made me think and question all the balogna I hear on talk radio and cable tv. It is just so refreshing to hear a different point of view and especially one that rings so true. Stop what you're doing right now and go see this movie. You'll be glad you did.

any ideas from people who have actually seen the movie?

Posted by: Pin Boy

taly, if you liked f-9/11, you should check out another Michael Morre film called Roger and Me about the demise of the american automobile industry in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan. great stuff as well!

PB

Posted by: taly2001

I ve seen Bowling for Columbine, also very disturbing and thought provoking. Will have to see Roger and me as I think Moore is a very gutsy film director and I really appreciate people who are going against the grain so to speak. It's tough, very tough.

Posted by: sidney

Quote:

Trouble is, the people who really need to see this film won't. people like anyone out there who think a vote for Nader is even remotely a good idea; people who aren't dyed-in-the-wool republicans who have questions about where the country is going. The people who really NEED to see this film never will, Moore's definitely preaching to the converted, and I think it would be a great thing if he was able to wake up even a small segment of the population with this, but I doubt, sadly, that he will

Quote:

You cannot see this movie and still vote for Bush. I don't care what your party affiliation is.

I was gonna ask who you voted for since you are so passionate about politics. I thought perhaps you were a hard core democrate who voted for Bill Clinton or Al Gore but I see this can not be. You are neither democrate, republican or independent being from russia.
Sid

Posted by: Jerico

Heh , man I hate to get into politics here but I will be honest.
I dont like Michael Moore at all.Anybody can make a movie to make someone look bad by cutting and pasting words like he does.
I am a republican but ya I am not a great Bush supporter. hes way to liberal to be conservative but I guess I will vote for him because I am no kerry fan either.
I like to own my guns and keep as much of my money as possible so I will have to vote Republican.
Just my 2 cents

Jerry

Posted by: Khashyar

A good discussion about politics is fine...

Let's just not start any big fires...

that we may have trouble putting out...

Khashyar

Posted by: Jerico

Kashyar ,
I agree

Posted by: sidney

It's been my obseration that those most fired up about politics usually don't vote. I'm also republican and do question Bush policy especially on the economy and jobs in particular. I am even less of a fan of Kerry though and would probably not vote for him. As bad as Bush, Kerry, Gore and Clinton are they are still shoulders ahead of Yeltsin. I couldn't believe someone so braindead on vodka was running the largest country in the world. His greatest moment was when he face down the tanks but was probably a result of liquid courage. It least he had the insight to put Putin in his place. My most memorable moment was when Clinton and He were having a debate. They asked Yeltsin a question and he wasn't talking about anything close to the subject. Clinton had to bite his tongue to keep from laughing. After Yeltsin finished Clinton said that he would have answered the same way.
sid

Posted by: Eryk

Quote:

Originally posted by sidney
It's been my obseration that those most fired up about politics usually don't vote.

Well, if I were an American I'd find it pretty hard to vote too ...the choice is between right-wing conservatives (Democrats) and ultra-right-wing conservatives (Republicans). If the issues that concern you are universal health care, fixing inner city schools, cutting the firearm murder rate etc. then there is no credible party or candidate to vote for.

Neither party presents an coherent, integrated 'vision' these days ('New Deal' etc.), they just promise to re-rig the tax codes in favour of their core supporters and dole out other scraps of 'pork' to special interest groups (Abortion and Gay Marriage issues to the Evangelical Facists, for example).

Eryk

Posted by: Castlestormer

If it's in the movies, it must be true, right?

Just make sure that after you have seen the movie, you check out all the unedited footage he actually shot. Maybe I'll make a "documentary" about Michael Moore. I'll call it Elmer Gantry: the sequel.

CS

PS: I wonder how many Kurds will stand up and applaud this film?

Posted by: taly2001

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerico
Heh , man I hate to get into politics here but I will be honest.
I dont like Michael Moore at all.Anybody can make a movie to make someone look bad by cutting and pasting words like he does.
I am a republican but ya I am not a great Bush supporter. hes way to liberal to be conservative but I guess I will vote for him because I am no kerry fan either.
I like to own my guns and keep as much of my money as possible so I will have to vote Republican.
Just my 2 cents
Jerry

Have you even seen the movie at all? I suspect you didn't. That's why you have nothing more to say than anybody can make a movie like this. It's pure truth and facts that smart people have known all along. It's one of the best documentaries i ve seen. And Moore is a REAL American and patriot of this country because he CARES about the people and the truth. You seem to only care about the money. No other comments.

Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Everyone,

I want to kindly remind everyone to please feel free to freely express your thought, and at the same time respect others...

I know that most people already have this in mind, but I wanted to remind us about this because I can hear the thunder in the background

Thanks for helping make this forum lively, informative, and a benefit for others...

Khashyar

(Actually, I would love to hear from others about their reaction after seeing the film.)

Posted by: taly2001

Quote:

Originally posted by sidney
I was gonna ask who you voted for since you are so passionate about politics. I thought perhaps you were a hard core democrate who voted for Bill Clinton or Al Gore but I see this can not be. You are neither democrate, republican or independent being from russia.
Sid

If I could I would definitely vote for Clinton (who was one of the best and smartest out there), AL Gore and Kerry. I am not political at all but I care about what is going on with the US and the country is going to pots since this B- guy took office. And please dont comment about the movie if you have NOT seen it. I didnt want to start political discussions but I wanted to encourage the people to see it, as it is a must see for every American to make up their mind and to talk intelligently about the most burning issues in our society today.

Posted by: taly2001

You are right Khashyar, why even bother to say anything when smb says that he only cares about his tax money. I am not into political discussions and fighting at all, I m very peaceful indeed. Just couldn't let that one go by. It's really inevitable to have a heated discussion about this movie as it is gonna polarize the society even more as I see it. And as I said those who really should see it won't even bother. All I know if B. gets second term, America is doomed.

Posted by: Jerico

Now Tali2001

Dont get mad at me.
You have your thoughts on these issues and I have mine.
Thats whats great about this country.
We can all talk openly about topics (right or wrong ) and not look over our shoulders for the politically correct police.
If you think Micheal Moore is a good movie producer more power to you.
Yes I will not go see this movie because I do not want to support him .
So you think Clinton was the best and smartest out there?
Well ,

I care about my money? Of course I do.
Since I work for it I like to keep as much of it as I can without the government putting its paws into it.
Lets just say I see a lot of wasteful spending (especially in california)
Now remember Tali2001 , dont get angry at me .
Were just talking

Jerry

Posted by: Eryk

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerico
I care about my money? Of course I do.
Since I work for it I like to keep as much of it as I can without the government putting its paws into it.

Sure, that is one thing, but have you seen those corporate taxation reform bills the House and senate are debating?? They are both rigged in the interests of 'Oligarchs' and special interest groups to an extent that would not be out of place in Ukraine!! I hesitate to use the word 'corruption' ....but only for a moment ....both bills are fundamentally corrupt. There as so many 'get out' clauses and hidden subsidies that even the IRS says that neither could really be implemented.

If you want to keep 'your' money (in the sense of personal taxation) then you don't want to be supporting republican corporate bribery like that since Bush isn't cutting expenditure (quite the reverse) and deficits have to be paid off in the end. That means all those corrupt kick backs to the oil industry and farming lobby et. al. have to be financed out of your income taxes eventually. That's where we get back to Mr. Moore's film (which I have not yet seen) ...'Iraq' isn't the only corrupt scam that the republican party are trying to foist on your country at the moment.

Eryk <<

Posted by: Castlestormer

Taly, just an FYI: Michael Moore himself says his movie is NOT a documentary. Look at the interviews he has conducted himself. And "This Is Spinal Tap" was a documentary also, right?

I'm outta here dudes on this one. This thread could get red hot real fast.

Posted by: mria

Quote:

Originally posted by CastleStormer

I'm outta here dudes on this one. This thread could get red hot real fast.

Ha ha.I know-I wrote a reply, but deleted it quickly.

Posted by: Eryk

Quote:

Originally posted by mria

I'm outta here dudes on this one. This thread could get red hot real fast.

Ha ha.I know-I wrote a reply, but deleted it quickly.

Cowards

Eryk

Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Everyone,

Lena and I just saw the movie tonight.

I think that everyone should go and see the movie themselves and make up their own mind about what is effective and what is not effective in the film.

The film presents topics that are currently in our society's mind, so it at least will get everyone who watches it to think about the war in Iraq and other issues.

I believe that debate is a good thing, and this film deals directly with the issues that the United States is facing as a nation.

I think that this is all that I will say for now, but... I noticed that Lena had tears in her eyes during parts of the film, and I also felt moved at times.

I also feel that it shows some of the reality of the war in Iraq (from the soldiers' and Iraqi people's side) that we don't normally see on the news, so in this sense I feel that it is important to watch just to see some unique footage coming from the Iraqi War.

Anyway, I would love to hear some thoughts from others who haev seen the film...

Khashyar

Posted by: Andy72

I consider it more like a well hidden/between the lines politic movie with a lot of unuseful bashing, some strong emotions (put there only to make it look more real) and no alternative solutions to the problems it shows (if not obvious things like we all love peace and prosperity), so lots and lots of demagogy.

I don't find it helpful.

Ciao!

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by taly2001
You are right Khashyar, why even bother to say anything when smb says that he only cares about his tax money. I am not into political discussions and fighting at all, I m very peaceful indeed. Just couldn't let that one go by. It's really inevitable to have a heated discussion about this movie as it is gonna polarize the society even more as I see it. And as I said those who really should see it won't even bother. All I know if B. gets second term, America is doomed.

What about a little more respect for the opinions of other people? Uh? Really, let's try to be nice on here.

Ciao!

Posted by: Castlestormer

"All I know if B. gets second term, America is doomed. "

Be encouraged Taly. It would take a hell of a lot more than a president to doom this great country. There is something in abundance here that is kind of hard to explain. I guess it can just be called the American spirit. We are a country that is full of great, intelligent, hard working, inventive, and very patriotic people. You could see it all over the 9/11 episode. You see it every time we show up to assist other countries. You see it in our workmanship, arts, media, technology, and influence. And you definitely see it in every small town USA for their 4th of July parades. Remember that people still risk life and limb to get here on a daily basis.

Hitler didn't doom Germany. Stalin didn't doom Russia. The bombs didn't doom Japan. And NO PRESIDENT will doom this great country. Is the glass half empty? Is the sky falling? Is the end near? Is there big money to be made in spreading pessimism? While some will be biting their finger nails and pacing, wondering if the end is near because of some politician; most will be out there making this country one of the greatest, most generous countries on the planet.

Be encouraged taly. Time will eventually tell on every president what the truth actually was.

Posted by: Khashyar

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy72
I consider it more like a well hidden/between the lines politic movie with a lot of unuseful bashing, some strong emotions (put there only to make it look more real) and no alternative solutions to the problems it shows (if not obvious things like we all love peace and prosperity), so lots and lots of demagogy.

I don't find it helpful.

Ciao!

Hi Andy,

Did you have a chance to see the film?

What specifically about the film did you find to be the most effective, and least effective?

Khashyar

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by Khashyar
Hi Andy,

Did you have a chance to see the film?

What specifically about the film did you find to be the most effective, and least effective?

Khashyar

Not out in Italy yet. Let's say I had the unlucky chance to see wrapped up parts of it, and was enough since I have no intention of seeing it all. I could say I find effective what is real: the cruelty of any kind of war and what comes with it, how business and money and power are leading our life; but I don't think Moore can teach or want to teach about it with his movie. I don't find effective all the rest, and what was put beetween the lines.

I think Moore should be the next US president, show us what he can do, then someone can make a movie on him too.

Ciao!

Posted by: Andy72

More opinions about Moore and his movie: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ .

Of course searching online you find dozens, but I liked this one more :-)

Ciao!

Posted by: searcher

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerico

If you think Micheal Moore is a good movie producer more power to you.
Yes I will not go see this movie because I do not want to support him .
So you think Clinton was the best and smartest out there?
Well ,

[/B]

Ditto. I have considered seing it but there are some things I don't like about him too.

Searcher

NRA Life Member

Posted by: Amused0ne

First, lets define what a documentary is. Straight from the dictionary, it states

1: Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

This "documentary" meets neither of those definations.

As the Slate magazine article states (not exactly a "neo consertive' mag), this film intentionally attempts to deceive with clever editing and outright distortion of the facts.

Take the clip where President Bush is speaking about terrorism while playing golf. When you view the full footage, you see that he was talking about a then recent terrorist attack on a bus in Isreal. Yet Moore implies he's taking this cavalier attitude about our current engagement.

Or the implication that Bush and the Taliban were somehow tied because they visited Texas. They were actually in Texas to meet with Unical, a CALIFORNIA energy company. It had nothing to do with then Gov. Bush (btw, clinton admin met with the Taliban several times)

Not to mention, his attempting to say it was Bush admin who let the Bin Laden family leave due to his family ties to them. More B.S. It was Richard Clark (whose sworn testimony conflicts with his own book btw), who authorized them leaving the Country, as he stated during his testimony before the 911 commission.

Or the implication that the military targets minorities in their recruiting, thus resulting in their taking higher casualties. When in reality, 70% of casualties are white.

Each and Every 'fact' presented in his movie, is laden with rhetoric, lies, and distortion. As were his previous 2 movies. CHECK THE FACTS.

Thats what Moore is counting on.. Complacency. Your not verifying what he's attempting to say.

btw.. Moore was busted in yet another lie today. He claimed he was registered as an independant. When in fact, he's a registered democrat.. IN TWO STATES. Which is illegal btw. But then again... laws mean little to liberals when it doesn't suit their needs.

Posted by: mria

Quote:

Originally posted by Amused0ne
First, lets define what a documentary is. Straight from the dictionary, it states

1: Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

This "documentary" meets neither of those definations.

As the Slate magazine article states (not exactly a "neo consertive' mag), this film intentionally attempts to deceive with clever editing and outright distortion of the facts.

Take the clip where President Bush is speaking about terrorism while playing golf. When you view the full footage, you see that he was talking about a then recent terrorist attack on a bus in Isreal. Yet Moore implies he's taking this cavalier attitude about our current engagement.

Or the implication that Bush and the Taliban were somehow tied because they visited Texas. They were actually in Texas to meet with Unical, a CALIFORNIA energy company. It had nothing to do with then Gov. Bush (btw, clinton admin met with the Taliban several times)

Not to mention, his attempting to say it was Bush admin who let the Bin Laden family leave due to his family ties to them. More B.S. It was Richard Clark (whose sworn testimony conflicts with his own book btw), who authorized them leaving the Country, as he stated during his testimony before the 911 commission.

Or the implication that the military targets minorities in their recruiting, thus resulting in their taking higher casualties. When in reality, 70% of casualties are white.

Each and Every 'fact' presented in his movie, is laden with rhetoric, lies, and distortion. As were his previous 2 movies. CHECK THE FACTS.

Thats what Moore is counting on.. Complacency. Your not verifying what he's attempting to say.

btw.. Moore was busted in yet another lie today. He claimed he was registered as an independant. When in fact, he's a registered democrat.. IN TWO STATES. Which is illegal btw. But then again... laws mean little to liberals when it doesn't suit their needs.

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by mria
So , Michael Moore may have took a misquote here and there, but if thats what he has to do to get rid of some of the illusions that Western people have about how they are supporting peace in the world, then good luck to him.

Problem is, I think, if Moore wanted to make a documentary, but that is clearly not a documentary, that it's what... a movie, ok... But, how real? We cannot treat movies as documentaries... So what use can be done of Moore's production? How useful it is? What great insights and constructive advices does it give? Maybe he wants only to shock, teach something, show people distortions of facts from politicians? But if he actually does it distorting facts himself, doesn't he become like those he blames in his movie?

An old english lady I knew used to say: "steal an apple or steal a car still a robber you are". I say instead what I said in my previous post: let's make Moore president and let's see how he can support peace and what he can make of America.

Ciao!

Posted by: Jill

Personally, I really like Michael Moore--I liked "Bowling for Columbine" and thought "Stupid White Men" was one of the most interesting reads I've come across in a while.

Anyway, I just thought I'd lighten the mood around here. This is from David Lettermen. Just don't be offended--this is humor, not serious political commentary.

Quote:

Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11"

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about Dodgeball

Posted by: mria

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy72
Problem is, I think, if Moore wanted to make a documentary, but that is clearly not a documentary, that it's what... a movie, ok... But, how real? We cannot treat movies as documentaries... So what use can be done of Moore's production? How useful it is? What great insights and constructive advices does it give? Maybe he wants only to shock, teach something, show people distortions of facts from politicians? But if he actually does it distorting facts himself, doesn't he become like those he blames in his movie?

An old english lady I knew used to say: "steal an apple or steal a car still a robber you are". I say instead what I said in my previous post: let's make Moore president and let's see how he can support peace and what he can make of America.

Ciao!

I haven't seen the film, but I know Moore's politics and they are correct. The US government's support of Israel(who illegally harbours weapons of mass descruction, but apparently that is okay) is a disgrace. "Israelis" (I say this tongue in cheek because the only true Israeli's are Muslim Palestinians, NOT the recently emigrated US, European and AUstralian Jewish people, who have planted themselved slap bang in the middle of Arab turf and have claimed as their own , based on some book, that has no relation to the beliefs of the people they have evicted from their homes)
are breaching the UN by holding these weapons but because the US is friendly with them(or rather created Israel)-we hear no talks of invasion.
Bush entered Iraq because he wanted "regime change". At the same time the US has good relations with Saudi, although Saudi has a disgustingly fundamentalist regime-extremely oppressive. Saudis are killing US citizens left right and centre, and not a murmur from Bush. (why? so as not to disrupt trade relations)

12 years ago, the US government supported Sadam Hussein.

The US government created the TALIBAN in Afghanistan (but they used to call them "Afghan Freedom Fighters", untill it suited them not to)

So , Michael Moore may have took a misquote here and there, but if thats what he has to do to get rid of some of the illusions that Western people have about how they are supporting peace in the world, then good luck to him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I added the rest of my argument to this. When you think of the disgraceful way that the US government is behaving, I'm saying, don't put Moore's movie out of contex by picking on a little bit here and there, when his basic message is obviously the above. Anyone who is picking up on the semantics of the word "documentary" has missed the point. The US government basically LIED in order to invade Iraq (e.g. evidence Saddam can assemble weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes), and have now been found out. They've sacked a few people to cover their arse.
I think the above are much more pressing issues than whether or not Michael bloody Moore has lied in his film.

Posted by: mria

Sorry Jill, the films not out here yet

so I can't pick up on the comments you put.
I'm just commenting on Moore's general politics, based on his books. He simply expresses what are the flaws in the US government's policies, and he is correct based on the facts and events which have taken place in the last part of the 20th century. If people aren't watching or taking any notice of the news, then he has had to find another way to show them the other side of the coin. And that has been through this film.
But perhaps people prefer to believe what suits them rather than what is staring them in the face. Throughout history, people have usually believed their government is correct, but in these days of mass media, there is no excuse for doing this.

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by Jill
Anyway, I just thought I'd lighten the mood around here. This is from David Lettermen. Just don't be offended--this is humor, not serious political commentary.

Thanks Jill! That was better than Moore's 'humor' :-P

Ciao!

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by mria
I think the above are much more pressing issues than whether or not Michael bloody Moore has lied in his film.

I undestand your point of view, but I think you should be more careful when you say this. If we don't like lies, we should not like them from anyone; or I might as well say that Saddam was a more pressing issue than whether or not the governments lied to us... and we never get to any constructive conclusion :-D

Ciao!

Posted by: mria

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy72
If we don't like lies, we should not like them from anyone; or I might as well say that Saddam was a more pressing issue than whether or not the governments lied to us... and we never get to any constructive conclusion :-D

Ciao!

And Africa? The tribal warfare taking place there. And Mugabe? And Palestine? The problem is Bush is far too selective about the pressing issues that he chooses to address. In fact he only seems to address the issues where he has something to gain, and this is what is angering people outside the realms of the Western capitalist ideology.

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by mria
And Africa? The tribal warfare taking place there. And Mugabe? And Palestine? The problem is Bush is far too selective about the pressing issues that he chooses to address. In fact he only seems to address the issues where he has something to gain, and this is what is angering people outside the realms of the Western capitalist ideology.

I can agree. But Moore is not part of the western capitalist ideology? He put this all together only to show us the light? He is not selective in choosing what to tell in his movies?

I don't mean that we should be passive spectators of the events in this world, never complain, and not try to change anything, but sure I would not choose Moore to show me the light in the dark.

Ciao!

Posted by: mria

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy72
I can agree. But Moore is not part of the western capitalist ideology? He put this all together only to show us the light? He is not selective in choosing what to tell in his movies?

I don't mean that we should be passive spectators of the events in this world, never complain, and not try to change anything, but sure I would not choose Moore to show me the light in the dark.

Ciao!

-------------------------------------------

Its a shame Moore does have to be the one to explain to people what is going on. Too many people in the rich world have the attitude that "I'm happy and comfortable, so it doesn't matter to me what is happening out there in the big bad world." These people don' t realise that their comfort is reliant on the oppression of other countries.

----------------------------------------------------------
The notion of "war on terrorism" is infantile. You can kill terrorists, but you can't kill terrorism because terrorism is an ideology . In fact the US government's policies just antagonise terrorism by the fact that it is insisting on aggravating Muslim countries, and by supporting Israel against Palestine. As long as the US continues to do so, I believe we have only seen the first rumbles of the terrorism that is to come.
If the Israeli army has killed every member of your family, and your home has been crushed by Israeli bulldozers, what have you got to lose? What are you going to do?- you are going to help hurt the country whose government is helping to hurt you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The US government (along with the UK) has got itself into a very sticky situation in Iraq, and I can't see how its going to get itself out of it. THe only way it can do so, as a Scottish politician here said, is:
#1 Bush must resign
#2 Before he resigns he must go down on his hands and knees to Kofi Annan, the leader of the UN, and beg for his assistance in clearing up the mess he has created in Iraq.
#3 A Muslim army, perhaps from Iran or an Arab country must be invited to participate in the peacekeeping in Iraq, if any semblance of order is going to be maintained.

Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Everyone,

I thought that it would be helpful to present the words of news writers and film critics regarding some of the issues that we have been discussing here, so that we have some clearer facts to work with.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that a person can more effectively talk about and discuss the film if they see it, and then make up minds for themselves, and speak about the film based on what they have seen in the film.

I think that it is more important to see a film and be able to speak with others about it than to not see it because a person does not want to pay $10 to see the film (and thus support the distributors of the film). You would not be watching the film with the intention of supporting him, but rather you can see some never-before-seen footage of iraq and other footage, as well as to be able to speak specifically about the film and what was presented in it.

But, mostly, a person can not really talk about a film and argue for or against a film woithout having seen it first.

Here are what some news writers (and one film critic)have said about the film and whether it is factual:

***

Fox news is the most conservative of the major news organizations. Here is what Fox writer Roger Friedman writers in his article "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation":
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html)

"It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail."

"As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" � as we saw last night � is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty � and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice."

"Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

"Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families."

******

In a Washington Post article entitled "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Turns Up the Heat," writer Desson Thomson mentions that the facts that are presented in the documentary can clearly be found in the public record:

"FAHRENHEIT 9/11," is a guided missile aimed directly at the presidency of George W. Bush, just four months ahead of the national election."

"Its political purpose is unequivocal. But here's the part that matters: Its trajectory is guided with pinpoint accuracy. With an ironic narrative that takes us from the Florida debacle that decided the 2000 presidential election to the political nettling aftermath of war in Iraq, "Fahrenheit 9/11" sagely uses the public record, the facts and the president's goofiest statements and on-camera performances to score its points."

****

Roger Ebert, the most respected film critic in his field, has this to say in his article "'9/11': Just the facts?"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-f...tr-moore18.html

"A reader writes:"

"'In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary.'"

"That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not."

"Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that."

****

In an NBC news article entitled "Michael Moore faces heat
over methods," the film's distributor speak about how they checked the facts in the film:
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5288517/)

�Fahrenheit 9/11� underwent thorough factual scrutiny, said Harvey Weinstein, whose Miramax banner was prohibited by parent company Disney from releasing the movie. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, bought back the film and arranged for distribution by Lions Gate and IFC Films.

�I hired the toughest team of fact checkers I could find, lawyers and head counsel from The New Yorker,� Harvey Weinstein said in an e-mail response to questions from The Associated Press. �We invited them to be tough � and they were. All journalism should be this careful.�

*****

NBC news article entitled "�Fahrenheit 9/11� scores with critics," mentions that film critics have given it overwhelmingly postiive reviews:

"the movie review Web site Rottentomatoes.com ranked critics� opinions as running about 80 percent in Moore�s favor" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5290169/)

***

Here are some other reviews that I found online:

What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together. It's a look back that feels like a new gaze forward.

Washington Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fahrenheit 9/11 may be seen as another example of the liberal media preaching to its own choir. But Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadilloes that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions.

Time Magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a storming work of tempered polemic, gripping from start to last, that uses the war in Iraq as a starting point for offering a largely convincing class-based analysis of contemporary America. Small wonder that few US distributors want to touch it.

Daily Telegraph (British newspaper)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are still some classic Moore moments here, notably when squirming US congressmen are invited to sign up their own children to fight in Iraq. The director has always been strongest on the cusp between anger and humour, but there are simply too few such inspired episodes here. Fahrenheit 9/11 hits enough of its targets to qualify as an important and timely film. But it should have been a smart bomb, and it feels more like a blunt instrument.

The Times (British newspaper)

Posted by: Khashyar

I am hoping that we can discuss this with facts...

This is the kind of thread that has the potential to become emotional to the point of hurting other people.

I feel that we can continue to discuss this in a way were we can discuss and even debate factual points, but not do it in a way that insults anyone or damages friendships...

Fortunately, we enjoy discussions on this website based upon the fact that we all have a mutual interest in Russia, Russian Culture, and Russian-Western relationships.

Khashyar

Posted by: mria

Hi Khashyar,

I truly did try not to become involved in this thread,as you can see earlier on, but in fact, I WAS offended by some of the things that have been written, especially that some film is being used as a scapegoat.
This thread did have explosive potential from the beginning--I'm out now.

Posted by: Khashyar

Yes, there are very different and emotional views about this film in the U.S., partly because the country is so evenly divided regarding President Bush... So, I think that the debate about this film reflects the evenly split political views in the country.

I am not asking you to leave the conversation in this thread

I'm just reminding us all to remember that we are all friends here, and that we can speak reasonably and factually about this film without hurting our friendships...

Khashyar

Posted by: Eryk

Quote:

Originally posted by Khashyar
I'm just reminding us all to remember that we are all friends here, and that we can speak reasonably and factually about this film without hurting our friendships...

Asking people to be 'reasonable' about an event that has cost around 10,000 civilian lives is a bit like me asking Natasha's uncle to be 'reasonable' about the gulags. Somewhat impractical.

Eryk

Posted by: Khashyar

Yes, I know that many thousands of civilians were killed in the Iraq conflict, and that is one of the things that I feel sad about regarding the war.

But, just as you would not shout at and insult a friend at their house during a dinner party, even over a charged political discussion, I believe it is important for us to help maintain a positive and beneficial environment here in this forum.

We can disagree with one another, but we can disagree without creating a venomous environment.

I believe that everyone will benefit from both a vibrant, thoughtful and stimulating environment without verbal punches.

I am not saying that we have crossed over the line in this thread--I am simply reminding us of what the guidelines of the forum is so that we can talk about this film and these issues in a beneficial way.

Khashyar

Posted by: mria

Okay, I'm back

[Aside]
One trying aspect of this war for me has been the fact that one of my uncles is in the army and was sent to Iraq for 6 months. Now, I love him to bits and he had to believe in the war, otherwise he couldn't do his job properly. I demonstrated against the war, and he knew that.
It didn't affect our relationship, and now he is back and we don't discuss the politics. But sometimes he would give me glimpses of how it is there, and I did get the impression that the British soldiers don't treat the local Iraqis extremely respectfully

Posted by: Eryk

Quote:

Originally posted by mria
and I did get the impression that the British soldiers don't treat the local Iraqis extremely respectfully

That is not surprising, and in a sense, not even something to be concerned about in general terms. Soldiers are professional killers ...terminating lives is absolutely central to what they do and consequently we:

a) Cannot expect them to be policemen or social workers ...and...

b) Have to be *extremely* careful when, where and how such people are deployed.

Soldiers are fundamentally paid to do two things ...kill and/or die. There is no case in history where a country has been placed under military control and humane standards have been maintained.

Eryk

Posted by: Andy72

Quote:

Originally posted by Eryk
Soldiers are fundamentally paid to do two things ...kill and/or die. There is no case in history where a country has been placed under military control and humane standards have been maintained.

Eryk

That can be true, but they might also love to defend and help others, knowing they might kill someone, or die doing it. This is short, but a good example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3267513.stm

Ciao!

Posted by: Andy

Three topics not supposed to be discussed - sex, religion and politics. I'll avoid them for now.

That being said, I feel compelled to respond to the following statement:

Quote:

Originally posted by Eryk
That is not surprising, and in a sense, not even something to be concerned about in general terms. Soldiers are professional killers ...terminating lives is absolutely central to what they do and consequently we:

a) Cannot expect them to be policemen or social workers ...and...

b) Have to be *extremely* careful when, where and how such people are deployed.

Soldiers are fundamentally paid to do two things ...kill and/or die. There is no case in history where a country has been placed under military control and humane standards have been maintained.

Eryk

Eryk, it is obvious that you don't have a great deal of respect for the profession of arms. Typical of one who has never defended his country. I have served alongside British soldiers in several operations and have found them to be extremely professional; I do not place much credence on a second hand account.
I enlisted in the Air Force on day 79 of the Iranian hostage crisis, was eventually selected to attend the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, and after receiving my bachelor's degree from the aforementioned institution, I went to and graduated from pilot training. I continue to serve part time in the Air Force Reserve.

I realize that the Air Force is the 'gentlemen's' branch of service, but in making such rash generalizations about military professionals, you are ignoring quite a few humanitarian operations that the military has been involved in. I've lost a few classmates in some of those peacekeeping operations. Let me rattle off just a few: Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia (ongoing), Cyprus, Haiti, Iran after the recent earthquake, and multiple African humanitarian operations. The list is significantly longer, but I'm an old soldier who's forgotten more than he can remember. The press does not give humanitarian missions very much coverage unless the mission fails or encounters some loss of life.

I've lost quite a few friends and classmates over the years while they have defended the constitution of the United States. I do not like to see their sacrifices tarnished by such cheap shots.
Had you served during the cold war, you might be able to grasp how the balance of military power kept the world from plunging into WWIII.

And as for your comment that occupying forces have never been humane, I find it humorous how one from Europe can so quickly dismiss post WWII occupation of Germany and Japan. Are you for a second saying that the Berlin Airlift and MacArthur's reshaping of Japan weren't humane? For the most part, the same can be said of the current situation in Iraq. If you choose to point out the war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, then I feel compelled to remind you that the previous regime would have employed woodchippers; Ouday and Qusay really enjoyed using those woodchippers. Not to mention the fact that the previous regime used chemical weapons on its own people (how quickly one forgets photographs of dead Kurdish women and children in villages after the Iraqi military used mustard gas ... I believe that it was on the cover of Time magazine).

I am personally insulted, along with many of my comrades in arms, of your statement that we are professional killers. If you spent a few days in uniform, you would quickly realize that most military professionals feel that we have failed in our objective of deterring the use of military force when we engage in combat operations. It is an extremely small minority of soldiers who relish combat operations (and I would suggest that this is due to some psychological defect); unfortunately, Hollywood and the press makes it seem that is the norm.

To quote the Strategic Air Command's motto, 'Peace is our profession.'

Posted by: Andy

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy72
That can be true, but they might also love to defend and help others, knowing they might kill someone, or die doing it. This is short, but a good example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3267513.stm

Ciao!

Andy72, thank you for posting a more accurate link. I haven't had my turn in country yet (it's coming), but from those that have gone before me, their stories are similar.

Off topic: Great name! It looks like I beat you to the shortened version by a couple of months.

Posted by: Eryk

>>Eryk, it is obvious that you don't >>have a great deal of respect for the >>profession of arms. Typical of one >>who has never defended his country.

Assumptions. Switching back to 'facts' for a moment, I was serving with NATO until 1988, my Mother is ex-Royal Air Force, my Father is ex-Navy, my Grandfather ex-Army and other Grandfather ex-Navy also. All were 'career professionals' except the Grandfather in the Army who was there because of general mobilisation in WW2.

>>I've lost quite a few friends and >>classmates over the years while they >>have defended the constitution of the >>United States. I do not like to see their >>sacrifices tarnished by such cheap >>shots.

We were busy losing people in Northern Ireland for 30 years, including the era I was involved. Your point? There is nothing 'heroic' about getting blown up by an IRA bomb. It is a gruesome, brutal, nasty business that has no 'positive' dimension. Your use of the term 'tarnish' implies that you see some 'bright and shiny' aspect to this ...I don't.

>>Had you served during the cold war, >>you might be able to grasp how the >>balance of military power kept the >>world from plunging into WWIII.

I did serve then and the 'balance' in question was 'Mutually Assured Destruction'. In other words our killing machine was equal in lethality to theirs.

Our job in NATO was ensuring our ability to inflict the maximum possible body count on the Soviet Union. It was a necessity at the time, but don't ask me to be 'proud' of the hours I spent on target analysis ...I was planning mass murder on an unmentionable scale and that is *never* something it is appropriate to be proud of. It was a dirty, nasty unpleasant job that unfortunately need to be done.

>>And as for your comment that >>occupying forces have never been >>humane, I find it humorous how one >>from Europe can so quickly dismiss >>post WWII occupation of Germany >>and Japan.

Have you any conception of the 'industrial scale' rape that went on in occupied Germany? I could go on, but it is easily found in any decent historical analysis.

>>I am personally insulted, along with >>many of my comrades in arms, of >>your statement that we are >>professional killers.

Then I regret that you are insulted but my opinion stands. The only reason I'm not still in the military is the post-Cold War downsizing, your analysis is all based on a fundametally flawed assumption.

Eryk

Posted by: mria

Quote:

Originally posted by Eryk
.

Have you any conception of the 'industrial scale' rape that went on in occupied Germany? I could go on, but it is easily found in any decent historical analysis.

Eryk [/B]

When the US military went to Japan, they were offered huge houses of Korean "comfort women" (very young women forced into prostitution).THe Japanese offered these women to the US army so that they wouldn't rape their own women. Not innocent themselves, they were also used by the Japanese army.

It worked very well, and the US ordered the Japanese to open more of these houses of comfort women.

The women were treated very very cruelly, and those that didn't die of starvation, disease, torture, whatever,and were released, were never able to marry afterwards in their own country. Either they became infertile, or the society looked upon them in a shameful way.

There is now a museum open in Korea dedicated to these women.

Posted by: mria

Sorry-rephrase a word. "Prostitution" means, they were receiving money. THe Korean comfort women were not.

Posted by: Thenatural

Quote:

Originally posted by Eryk
Well, if I were an American I'd find it pretty hard to vote too ...the choice is between right-wing conservatives (Democrats) and ultra-right-wing conservatives (Republicans). If the issues that concern you are universal health care, fixing inner city schools, cutting the firearm murder rate etc. then there is no credible party or candidate to vote for.

Eryk

Exactly the way I have thought many times. I just cannot see how an American with a set of values about other matters than himself/herself and their money, have an alternative at all in USA.
They live in a reality that is very diffrent politically than even here in western Europe.

Posted by: Thenatural

I haven't seen the movie yet by Michael Moore myself.
I remember once, about 1 1/2 years ago on another russian board, where I got involved in a discussion about good Americans and I mentioned Jimmy Carter and Micheale Moore as examples. I got a lot of heat from that one and was eventually kicked out of the site for speaking my mind.

I voiced my concerns about the invasion of Iraq and it wasn't popular by most members in this pre-war, patriotic frenzy attitude of "doing the right thing". What have we seen so far? Lots of US and coalition soldiers killed along with Iraqui's and other civilians. And most important of all, the west and the US especially are more hated in the Arabic world that ever before. It's the cowboy tactics all over again. Autrocities met by autrocities. When will the US political establishment wake up and realize that just because USA is the most powerful country in the world, it's a price to be paid by acting like "world police" and think nothing of the difference of culture in these matters?

I am totally convinced that Bush and the republicans have made USA and the free world more unsafe by their actions. The more I hear of them and their media voice Fox News, the sicker I get.
It's supposedly all about the so-called American freedom and justice. It's a lot of hogwash! The average American citizen is brainwashed into thinking they are the only country where freedom exist and where they can speak their minds!!!
Freedom? Where's the freedom and humanism in USA? It's the country that by far has the most of its population behind bars, death penalty etc.

Individual freedom they cry. Freedom to carry arms so that they can freely blow away any intruders. I am not a religious man, but what they say in the bible is true; you live by the sword and you die by the sword.
When will America wake up and realize this truth?

Posted by: searcher

Quote:

Originally posted by Thenatural
Individual freedom they cry. Freedom to carry arms so that they can freely blow away any intruders. I am not a religious man, but what they say in the bible is true; you live by the sword and you die by the sword.
When will America wake up and realize this truth?

That would be looking at it from a very simple point of view. It is more than being able to "freely blow away any intruders".

Also quoting the bible it says:

Luke 22:35-36:
"And he said unto them, when I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

First, in regards to the scripture it indicates the importance of the sword/weapon.

Firearms ownerships is more that simply self defense.

While self defense is one facet of the issue it is not the only facet. Criminals are opportunist and they will use any tool (e.g.- Guns, knives, etc...) at their disposal to their advantage.

One should only use as much force as necessary, not excessive force, to defend their life or the life of a family member.

One does not "blow away" an intruder unless that intruder is a threat to their life. Defense has to be justifyable.

Also, firearms (as also viewed by the authors of the constitution) were the ultimate and FINAL means of controllong or replacing a failed or out of control government.

It gives the citizen the ultimate control. It allows them to be citizens not subjects of the state.

The authors simply did not write the constitution over night, it too 13 years before it was final.

they considered many issues and also considered how they might be in the future. They understood that firearms development would change and become more advanced.

During the revolutionary war they went from flint locks to more advanced firearms.

Much of the arguments and discussions can be found by reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers of the era. These matters were discussed extensively in their writings and debates.

Posted by: searcher

The Bible, Luke 11:21:
""When a strong man fully armed guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed; but when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied, and distributes his plunder."

The Bible, Zechariah 9:8:
"But I will defend my house against marauding forces. Never again will an oppressor overrun my people, for now I am keeping watch."

The Bible, Exodus 22:2:
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."

Proverbs 24:10-12:
"[10] If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.

The Bible, Joel 3:9-10:
"[9] Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
[10] Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

Pope John Paul II:
"legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason." From his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE

and finally

Rev. Billy Graham:
"A gun cannot harm anyone unless there is a human being to pull the trigger. Ten million guns would be harmless unless some human became stimulated by hate, greed or prejudice. So, the gun controversy becomes a spiritual problem. While strict gun laws might have some effect in showing the world that we are concerned about the problem of violence, violence is really a thing of the human heart and conscience. If men harbor the desire to kill and maim, they will find a way, guns or no guns." November 1968

Posted by: Thenatural

I understand what you wrote...I think.
But what you must understand is the psycholgy of man.
If given the heavy responibilty of choosing when it is necessary to use lethal force, a normal person is very likely to exceed those boundaries when under perceived threat.

About what Billy Graham wrote...what can you say? Man creates guns and then expect them to not use it? ********! Guns kills people and people kills people and people created guns!
Why di people make guns? A deterent? No way, they created it to blow away opponents and thus the spiral of violence continues...

One might carry on philosophical discussions about the use of only necessary force in order to combat a threat, but that's only that...philosophy. You, as well as me, know that if we have fire arms in the house and someone intrudes...we will blow them away. Only later will we know the real reason for our fear, right or wrong. If you are a calm and weight training man like myself, you would prefer to knock the intruder cold, but still alive, instead of kill the only answer as to why break in at the first place.

I'm sorry that I quoted the scripture because I'm not a believer. One thing is that only a fool would disregard the discrepancies of the texts, another is is one that take out segments that suits him.

The most sickening aspect of all religious behaviour is that of the right-wing american politician who preaches the Gospel and at the same time, only pracitcing one thing...money!!!Sorry, two things, money and power.

Posted by: searcher

Thats not true of everyone.

You can't reasonable argue that "just because you have something" it will be used or it will be used in the wrong manner.

Its like saying, excuse me, a man has a penis therefore he will promiscuous.

I have many firearms and I haven't had any problems simply because I have them.

Let me say that I have more than 10 but less than 100.

They don't act upon their own free will.

Just because one has does not mean one will use.

I have had a few intruders and have not use a firearm in a violent or threatening manner.

BUT if I must defend myself from someone who I believe is going to do something to kill me I will not hesitate to defend myself or any member of my family.

Firearms are inanimate objects they don't kill unless there is a person controlling them.

They don't do anything by virtue of what they are or by their mere existance.

Quote:

If you are a calm and weight training man like myself, you would prefer to knock the intruder cold, but still alive, instead of kill the only answer as to why break in at the first place.

Yes, it take self discipline to have restraint but you also assume you will have the opportunity to "knock him cold".

This also assumes that the intruder or attacker will be unarmed... how would you possibly know????

Me personally I would keep my firearm out of sight (and I have) as not to alert the intruder or to escalate the situation.

Posted by: Thenatural

Quote:

Originally posted by searcher
Thats not true of everyone.

You can't reasonable argue that "just because you have something" it will be used or it will be used in the wrong manner.

Its like saying, excuse me, a man has a penis therefore he will promiscuous.

I have many firearms and I haven't had any problems simply because I have them.

Let me say that I have more than 10 but less than 100.

They don't act upon their own free will.

Just because one has does not mean one will use.

I have had a few intruders and have not use a firearm in a violent or threatening manner.

BUT if I must defend myself from someone who I believe is going to do something to kill me I will not hesitate to defend myself or any member of my family.

Firearms are inanimate objects they don't kill unless there is a person controlling them.

They don't do anything by virtue of what they are or by their mere existance.

Yes, it take self discipline to have restraint but you also assume you will have the opportunity to "knock him cold".

This also assumes that the intruder or attacker will be unarmed... how would you possibly know????

Me personally I would keep my firearm out of sight (and I have) as not to alert the intruder or to escalate the situation.

You might have not personally yet have had the bad experience of having to use your fire arms yet. But believe me, under certain circumstances, you could find yourself using it and accidentally killing someone you didn't mean to kill. What then? Can you ever rectify that?

A penis used in the wrong manner can be harmful but rarely lethal. I haven't yet heard of a penis wound that was deadly.

Most people that have firearms have suffered no bad consequences, fortunately. But my point is having them, ready to be used, increases the risk consideable that they will be used.

I agree with you that if an intruder came in, I would also use the strongest defense I have, including firearms if I had them. That's the exact problem I'm trying to show. You're only human and you don't think too clearly in a situation like that. Is it worth killing for? Perhaps in the movies it is.

About the knocking the intruder down cold, yes, of course you never know how things will happen beforehand. That's my greatest fear about the US policy about weapons. It's so commonly accepted that any intruder or inhabitant automatically assume the other has a gun that it will eventually end up in a tragedy. No matter what. The authorities feeds on the insecurities of their citizens and they arm themselves. And the bad guys arm themselves in turn. What do you have? A spiral.

Is it perhaps totally stupid for you to learn that UK or Norwegain cops aren't armed in every-day activity? It's just because of this reasoning; force leads to counter-force. As of yet we have in this small country of ours, Norway, a much lower incidence of violence per capita than the USA and of course not that many tax-spending prisioners taking up resources.
Oh, the right wing also here keep pressing for weapons but most clear-thinking people know that that only lead to one thing: the spiral of violent force increases!!!

Posted by: estguy

Slow thinking, uneducated, spoon fed morons,,believe anything the Movie industry will throw to them. Self starters and self made people pay the bulk of the expense for the spine-less majority who want to be taken care of,,who NEED to be taken care of. Looking over seas for a bride is obvious, I wonder why American woman would want some of the men over here.

Posted by: sidney

We in America believe the law abiding citizen to be responsible enough to own and operate a firearm. After all don't we arm our military and many of them are teenagers and they are responsible enough. Police response time where I live is 45 minutes. I want to be more then a victim for those 45 minutes. If you feel comfortable enough with a 911 phone number for help so be it but many Americans think differently. I own several guns as probably 99 percent of my neighbors and I know of no one ever shooting someone. I do know of many people who have died in car accidents but I don't advocate taking them away from the people.
Sid

Posted by: searcher

Quote:

Originally posted by Thenatural
You might have not personally yet have had the bad experience of having to use your fire arms yet. But believe me, under certain circumstances, you could find yourself using it and accidentally killing someone you didn't mean to kill. What then? Can you ever rectify that?

I agree with you that if an intruder came in, I would also use the strongest defense I have, including firearms if I had them. That's the exact problem I'm trying to show. You're only human and you don't think too clearly in a situation like that. Is it worth killing for? Perhaps in the movies it is.

About the knocking the intruder down cold, yes, of course you never know how things will happen beforehand. That's my greatest fear about the US policy about weapons. It's so commonly accepted that any intruder or inhabitant automatically assume the other has a gun that it will eventually end up in a tragedy. No matter what. The authorities feeds on the insecurities of their citizens and they arm themselves. And the bad guys arm themselves in turn. What do you have? A spiral.

There are some basic rules to firearms usage which would prevent many "accidents".

1) Clearly identify your target

2) Know your target (as in #1) and what is BEYOND it.

3) Don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot

4) Always assume ALL firearms are ALWAYS loaded and ready to fire

There are many more.....

Often these "accidents" are the result of poor training and sometime being unfamiliar with the weapon and not knowing how to use it and what it is capable of.

As the NRA says there are no firearms accidents just negligence!!!!

If these basic rules are followed "accidents" wouldn't occur.

Quote:

That's my greatest fear about the US policy about weapons. It's so commonly accepted that any intruder or inhabitant automatically assume the other has a gun that it will eventually end up in a tragedy.

This is partially true but you also have to understand that criminals are OPPORTUNIST, they WILL use any tool that puts them at an advantage. It is UNSAFE to assume they are unarmed and if you "banned" firearms criminals would take further advantage of this fact. They would not disarm themselves, this would be to remove their greatest tool and they know that.

banning guns is like banning alcohol in the 1920's Prohibition or like making drugs illegal.

The problem won't go away by virtue of law. If criminals complied with laws they wouldn't be criminals!

Quote:

I agree with you that if an intruder came in, I would also use the strongest defense I have, including firearms if I had them. That's the exact problem I'm trying to show. You're only human and you don't think too clearly in a situation like that. Is it worth killing for? Perhaps in the movies it is.

I don't see it as a problem, regardless of whether I had firearms, a knife or my hands if I believe my life is in danger I will do whatever is necessary to stop the attacker. If this means killing them then yes, it is worth it. Their life is not MORE valuable than mine, it is equal but when they attempt to do something which will likely deprive me of my life then I will try my best to stop them.

Yes, if they are killed in the process of trying to KILL me then it is worth it and it is justifyable.

It does not require a gun to kill a person. If the attacker has a knife or a club / batton that can be equally lethat. The could just as easily stab you or bludgeon you to death.

If I am armed and they are not then it is to my advantage but they may not deterr them. In wghich case I must be ready to use it and be ready for the possible consequences.

If the attacker could kill me and it seems likely that they would then it is not something I have to think about. They have made that decision!

Posted by: sidney

Quote:

It does not require a gun to kill a person. If the attacker has a knife or a club / batton that can be equally lethat. The could just as easily stab you or bludgeon you to death.

To add to this. It levels the playing field in instances where the attacker is more powerful. My wife when armed has a much better chance of survival.
There are places in America where gun ownership is illegal by most average citizens. These places are a failed experiment. Lets take Washington DC where gun ownership is near imposssible and South Dakota which is a gun friendly state. Where most any lawabiding citizen can carry and own a firearm . Both DC and South Dakota have near identical populations. Where they differ is in gun related violence. DC has roughly 40x the amount of gun violence of SD. The reason is the criminal know his victim is unarmed in DC and an easy target. Unfortunately the police can't be every where all the time to intervine in crime. In SD the criminal knows there is a chance the person he is attacking may have means to defend himself. This in itself is a deterent because the biggest fear for a criminal is that someone may be able to stop him.
Sid

Posted by: Castlestormer

C'mon searcher...get with the program! More people were killed in car accidents last year than by guns. The logical thing to do would be to outlaw cars! They're an evil created by man and definitely being used for the wrong purposes. See how many people died of skin cancer last year? Better outlaw the sun also.

Just kidding guys. Let's all lighten up, OK? Let's all take a deep breath and start thinking good thoughts.

XXXOOO,
CS

PS: www.bowlingfortruth.com

Posted by: James Riske

Michael Moore has been proven to be an outright liar and fabricator. When challenged on the falsehoods of his 'documentaries', he never answers and backs away from challenges.

Listen, I take this stuff with a grain of salt and laugh at people who believe it or who are swayed by it. Just as much as I laugh at the radical right making accusations against Clinton or whomever, I laugh at the radical left (in this case, Moore) making accusations against Bush.

The truth is usually somewhere around the middle.

Anyone who believes this nonsense ought to grow up and have their head examined. It's possible to take any facts and set of circumstances and present your case in a compelling way if you leave things out and distort things just enough to keep them believable.

I suggest that you study BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind independently.

James

Posted by: Khashyar

Lot's of steam has been released in this thread

Again, I think that Americans are deeply divided on certain issues, and this thread is an example of it.

It was good to hear some views from both Americans and non-Americans on this... It shows us how different people's perspectives can be based upon where they are from, and what they are being told in their respective country's media and culture.

I feel like I'm ready to being thinking and writing about other topics.

People can make up their own minds on these issues, and either watch or not watch the film to see why it sparks so much powerful emotion from people. Perhaps this is because this is a film that addresses immediate issues that are occuring right now (like the war in Iraq), rather than reflecting upon something that has happened in the distant past.

I was invited to watch the documentary again with some friends last night, and I went to see it. People can make up their own mind about the merits of the film by watching it if they would like.

By the way, did you hear that a Russian won Winbleton...

Khashyar

(It might be time to close this thread soon, so that it doesn't become too divisive...)

Posted by: Khashyar

As I mentioned in the other "Off-topic" thread about Michael Moore:

I think that I am going to close this thread (and the other one about Michael Moore) because this topic appears to have been divisive, and is not related to our purpose here in this forum.

So, we have the points made here (and in the other thread) and will be able to look back on them, but... I am going to close these two threads because I think that there is nothing else positive that these threads can serve.

So, let's move on and continue our discussions about Russia and Russian-Western relationships...

Khashyar