-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Where is Fahrenheit 9/11 wrong?
- Thread starter Socreges
- Start date
- Status
Richard Cohen blasts the movie and he is not a Bush fan whatsoever.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/207771p-179168c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/207771p-179168c.html
From that review:
The only valid part about that review that wasn't vague mudslinging without explanation (see above) or irrelevant comparisons (he brings up the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad man...THANKS FOR THE UPDATE) was where he brought up the fact that the pre-war footage of Baghdad was not representative of how all of Iraq was before the war, which is something I agree with; that was one of the film's (few) weak points.
I'd be interested to know this man's extensive and intimate knowledge about the Bush administration, since he can so "easily dismiss" the movie without so much as one word why or how. What an ass.
The only valid part about that review that wasn't vague mudslinging without explanation (see above) or irrelevant comparisons (he brings up the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad man...THANKS FOR THE UPDATE) was where he brought up the fact that the pre-war footage of Baghdad was not representative of how all of Iraq was before the war, which is something I agree with; that was one of the film's (few) weak points.
mjq jazz bar
Banned
That was a pretty pathetic excuse for a review when you consider that guy's supposed to be an accomplished film critic.
Banjo Tango
Member
Yeah... why do you hate America?dark10x said:
dark10x said:
Likewise, I'd like to hear the rationale behind the fervent Moore haters. If Michael Moore came out and said that F9/11 was a balanced, fair look at the administration, I could see a valid point being made. But when he oft-compares it to an op-ed piece, and makes his politics known both in and out of the film, it's hard to really throw shit in his general direction. The disclaimers are there for any idiot to read.
Of course, then people will bring up the Heston speeches in Bowling For Columbine, which are, yes, edited together, but considering that he gives nearly the same damned speech at every damned rally, I don't see the great crime. Focusing on that one aspect of BfC is rather asinine anyway, the questions Moore asks in that one are more than valid, and you'd be a fool to dismiss them simply because he harangues a gun-happy actor.
I like what he has to say, and I think the vigor with which he pursues what he believes in is admirable. I'll be the first to admit that he can be a bit ham-fisted at times, but I firmly believe in his bottom line. I also get irritated when I see people (not necessarily you, dark) use their personal problems with him to automatically discount the things he says in his movies and books...sometimes when they haven't even seen or read them!dark10x said:
:lolBanjo Tango said:
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
human5892 said:
I fully agree with this traitor.
Most attempts to discredit his movie are half assed attempts to garner interest. I guess they are just playing devil's advocate. Patriotism is killing this country now when we can't even see how great of a crime the Iraq War is. Misinformed basis and reasoning, no direct threat against the US by Iraq, etc. There should be a huge hurdle to jump over if a country wants to go over it and all we are doing is fueling the fire of hate against us. I feel duped when I shrugged my shoulders during Bush's State of the Union address at the anti war protesters. Now, it'll harm any future problems since these shenanigans will undoubtly hinder any future war efforts, valid or not.That "review" by Cohen is pretty lame, considering the fact that the only justification the guy gives for how the movie supposedly sucks is that Sadaam was a nut. No Shit.
And about the footage of pre-war Iraq, while I agree that the depiction of the country may not be totally accurate, I think that its Moore's way of saying that life was going about its normal business before the invasion.
Sadaam was a madman, he would have had anyone shot just for looking at him wrong, but as a citizen, when you went outside, you didnt have to worry about you or your kids getting blown up from a car bomb when he was in power. I think its the chaos that reigns Iraq now that Moore is trying to make a comparison with.
And about the footage of pre-war Iraq, while I agree that the depiction of the country may not be totally accurate, I think that its Moore's way of saying that life was going about its normal business before the invasion.
Sadaam was a madman, he would have had anyone shot just for looking at him wrong, but as a citizen, when you went outside, you didnt have to worry about you or your kids getting blown up from a car bomb when he was in power. I think its the chaos that reigns Iraq now that Moore is trying to make a comparison with.
True enough, but I'm sure you could just as easily find a post-war scene of children frolicking or women laughing. It wouldn't mean the situation in Iraq is good, of course -- just as the pre-war footage in the film doesn't mean Saddam's regime was anything acceptable.ghostface said:
Oh, cute. But really. You haven't even seen the movie and you're the one going about making it seem as if this criticism is purely based on people not liking the president (have you stopped to think that perhaps there are REASONS for this, as with everything??) and refuting an entire thread by regarding it as "nonsense" (oh, well done - you got us). I'd sooner say your inability to understand stems from your misconceived pride. You seem to be completely out of your element here. It honestly is people such as you, dark, that will take any potential exceptions and use them to dismiss the movie, in turn dismissing the critical and truthful points that it makes. Granted, there are many people who will swallow whatever piece of information moore throws at them, but THAT IS WHY THIS THREAD EXISTS. It still has not served its purpose.dark10x said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/207771p-179168c.html
Cohen makes several points to strongly dislike the movie.
1) Information is presented that is not new
- he gives one example. this example may be known by some, but likely not the large majority of those going to see the movie. it's also very relevant. i hardly see this as a complaint.
2) "The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done.
- it is entertainment. nor is it affluent. often the movie deals with serious issues and in a very serious way.
3) "Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple UN resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein."
- why would there be? EVERYONE knows about that. what moore does is present alternatives. and i havent seen anyone refute them yet
4) "In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival - lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission."
- i dont like that moore did this, either
- however, it gives one necessary impression that hasn't been acknowledged. iraq was not the terrible place that we were told, as of it were void of freedom and joy.
5) "The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced."
- fair enough, but can SOMEONE give me a reason to not believe this? the evidence was pretty convicting. unless there's another explanation for how everything seemed to connect so nicely, i'll continue to suspect, albeit with much skepticism
Man, I'm sorry...but in my case, it has nothing to do with this movie. It's Moore himself.
Quite frankly, I am only bothered by the attention Moore is recieving for this film as I don't feel he deserves any of that attention or money. He has always spoken out against those who succeed through less than honest means...yet that is exactly what he is doing (and I'm not talking about this 9/11 movie either). It isn't that he lies to people, it is more that he is attempting to heavily influence people to support his opinion through methods I don't feel are totally honest.
It isn't as if he is a nice person anyways. He tries so hard to come off as an honest individual or message bearer for the people...but when you see him in person, you can help but shake your head. He is not even a remotely kind individual. I do not like to see these types of people succeed. That's all.
If you don't see it that way, well...that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I am simply basing my observation off of things I have encountered. This recent film has NOTHING to do with my feelings of him (as they are all based upon past actions). Only the attention bugs me...
Quite frankly, I am only bothered by the attention Moore is recieving for this film as I don't feel he deserves any of that attention or money. He has always spoken out against those who succeed through less than honest means...yet that is exactly what he is doing (and I'm not talking about this 9/11 movie either). It isn't that he lies to people, it is more that he is attempting to heavily influence people to support his opinion through methods I don't feel are totally honest.
It isn't as if he is a nice person anyways. He tries so hard to come off as an honest individual or message bearer for the people...but when you see him in person, you can help but shake your head. He is not even a remotely kind individual. I do not like to see these types of people succeed. That's all.
If you don't see it that way, well...that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I am simply basing my observation off of things I have encountered. This recent film has NOTHING to do with my feelings of him (as they are all based upon past actions). Only the attention bugs me...
I just came back from the film (sold out.. applause at end.. yadda yadda). I also just finished reading this entire thread. My opinion.. even if 1/10th of it is true/undistorted, I'm utterly disgusted. The part of the film which was most meaningful to me, was when the woman who's child had perished in Iraq had to defend herself in front of the White House.. and the woman attacking only said something like "It's just a stage.." or whatever.. "Where did he die?" <-- I was thinking.. 'does it fucking matter bitch?'
The pre-war Iraq stuff I think should have been better explained. Moore was not suggesting that this is the norm, but he was simply showing that Iraq was not some sort of giant sadam feering Nazi style ghetto that it was made out to be. At least that is what I got from it.
Also, it doesnt matter if Osama has or does not have ties with his family. They are still his family. If I had a brother I hadnt talked to for 10 years, and he shot some people and went on the run, my ass would be in deposition for more than one day.. I wouldnt be flown out of the country. I think that was Moore's point. Not that they supported Osama in any way, but to suggest that it was a bad idea in general. The bit about family members attending the wedding was in the movie to suggest that there is still some contact.. i.e. they might be able to find him.
I dont buy Moores explenation for why the war was fought, but it is at least intresting to see how far up the Saudi's asses our government is. and these personal ties have had an effect on our foreign policy, even if not in this case.
Also, it doesnt matter if Osama has or does not have ties with his family. They are still his family. If I had a brother I hadnt talked to for 10 years, and he shot some people and went on the run, my ass would be in deposition for more than one day.. I wouldnt be flown out of the country. I think that was Moore's point. Not that they supported Osama in any way, but to suggest that it was a bad idea in general. The bit about family members attending the wedding was in the movie to suggest that there is still some contact.. i.e. they might be able to find him.
I dont buy Moores explenation for why the war was fought, but it is at least intresting to see how far up the Saudi's asses our government is. and these personal ties have had an effect on our foreign policy, even if not in this case.
**EDIT for the dense post below this one:
In reference to all the people questioning the 7 minutes in the classroom:
It's amazing how time, just 3 years, warps peoples minds. Nobody knew the extent of what was happening in those 7 minutes. When the first plane hit it was reported and thought of as nothing more than an accident and was being compared to the plane that hit the Empire State Building. When the 2nd plane hit people thought it was nothing more than a replay of what had already happened, but eventually began to realize it was no longer an accident. Nobody thought or expected the towers were going to fall down almost an hour after the planes hit. Nobody realized who was responsible for this or how many planes had been hijacked and the wrong thing to do would have been to create a state of panic or to lash out or make a move without assessing the situation fully.
You can't judge 911 from hindsight, but the 911 commission did and this bipartisan commission commended George Bush for his reaction to the crisis. The most important thing myself or anyone was thinking when we didn't know the bounds of this terrorist attack was that the President more than anything had to remain safe. The fact that he wasn't in the White House, near the Capitol Building, or even in D.C. was a blessing on that day. The primary job of the President while 911 was taking place was to make sure that he was moved to some place safe and to try to maintain a state of calm across the nation. Hightening the state of panic would not have helped anyone and there was nothing that the President could have done, there was no action that he could have taken to change the outcome of the events on September 11th 2001. It is completely unfair and disgraceful to use the events of this day against him or any other American. The blame, anger, and hatred belongs directed at the terrorists.
911 changed America and it's still changing the world. We need to remember what America was before 911, we need to remember how naive and unaware of the threats that existed to our way of life. We can't look at 911 now as post-911 Americans and question why we did not act differently. Whatever choices we made, whatever decisions we had to make were the best that we could do with what we understood at the time. Looking back at the heroism, courage, and strength that we showcased as a country is something that we should all be proud of, not ashamed.
In reference to all the people questioning the 7 minutes in the classroom:
It's amazing how time, just 3 years, warps peoples minds. Nobody knew the extent of what was happening in those 7 minutes. When the first plane hit it was reported and thought of as nothing more than an accident and was being compared to the plane that hit the Empire State Building. When the 2nd plane hit people thought it was nothing more than a replay of what had already happened, but eventually began to realize it was no longer an accident. Nobody thought or expected the towers were going to fall down almost an hour after the planes hit. Nobody realized who was responsible for this or how many planes had been hijacked and the wrong thing to do would have been to create a state of panic or to lash out or make a move without assessing the situation fully.
You can't judge 911 from hindsight, but the 911 commission did and this bipartisan commission commended George Bush for his reaction to the crisis. The most important thing myself or anyone was thinking when we didn't know the bounds of this terrorist attack was that the President more than anything had to remain safe. The fact that he wasn't in the White House, near the Capitol Building, or even in D.C. was a blessing on that day. The primary job of the President while 911 was taking place was to make sure that he was moved to some place safe and to try to maintain a state of calm across the nation. Hightening the state of panic would not have helped anyone and there was nothing that the President could have done, there was no action that he could have taken to change the outcome of the events on September 11th 2001. It is completely unfair and disgraceful to use the events of this day against him or any other American. The blame, anger, and hatred belongs directed at the terrorists.
911 changed America and it's still changing the world. We need to remember what America was before 911, we need to remember how naive and unaware of the threats that existed to our way of life. We can't look at 911 now as post-911 Americans and question why we did not act differently. Whatever choices we made, whatever decisions we had to make were the best that we could do with what we understood at the time. Looking back at the heroism, courage, and strength that we showcased as a country is something that we should all be proud of, not ashamed.
I'm struggling to understand how that was at all relevant. Or did you simply think something positive and uplifting was required amongst all the negativity?
Is ignorance still that pervasive in America?
Even worse, when she responded "In Iraq", the lady said something to the effect of "Don't blame America - blame Al Qaeda".pestul said:I just came back from the film (sold out.. applause at end.. yadda yadda). I also just finished reading this entire thread. My opinion.. even if 1/10th of it is true/undistorted, I'm utterly disgusted. The part of the film which was most meaningful to me, was when the woman who's child had perished in Iraq had to defend herself in front of the White House.. and the woman attacking only said something like "It's just a stage.." or whatever.. "Where did he die?" <-- I was thinking.. 'does it fucking matter bitch?'
Is ignorance still that pervasive in America?
videogamer
Banned
Fusebox said:
Actually, that reminds me. Anyone seen "Control Room"? It has like a 97% at RottenTomatoes, so it looks to be pretty good. I heard that there's a scene where they show the toppling of the Saddam statue and then show that the square was actually empty besides the 20 or so men who toppled the statue.
Huh, just curious...Fusebox said:
No, he does not:
1) Obviously this would not help his argument whatsoever
2) Such images have been shown constantly and imprinted in everyone's minds
Instead, he shows the people that were very upset that their homes were destroyed and family members killed. The terrible stuff the media never shows you.
I just saw the movie tonight.
I'm not going to involve myself in the particulars of the debate as to whether or not Fahrenheit 9/11 is a distorted picture of what's been going on the last four years, because it is and it isn't. Just as Moore twists and misrepresents certain facts, so have our elected officials. If we can agree that Moore's unscrupulous editing is cause to boycott his film, certainly we can agree that the larger and more deadly lies this administration has knowingly stated and perpetuated represent just cause for its ouster? And if that's too bold a conclusion for you, consider this: We swallow 24/7 whatever the government presents to us as fact (even if it often isn't), so certainly we can endure two hours of one man's researched, though admittedly flawed, counterpoint: Call it a bi-partisan solution.
Seriously, though, what surprised me after finally seeing the Fahrenheit 9/11 was how these facts we seem now to be lost in ferocious debate are, in fact, of minimal importance in the overall context of the movie. I say this because I believe that for the majority of open-minded, curious, Americans, Fahrenheit 9/11 is an incredibly moving and informative piece of cinema. Not so much for Moore's conspiracy theories and connect-the-dots games (though the connections between families Bush and Bin Laden are enlightening); rather, it's his amazing portrait of our invasion of Iraq, weaving the country's physical destruction together with the emotional devestation wreaked upon families' from both sides. (Note: At the showing I went to tonight, people in the audience were openly weeping--something I hadn't seen since Schindler's List--and this is in Salt Lake City of all places.)
Fahrenheit 9/11, at its best, is a brutal, sobering reminder that Iraq is a war. And it's going on now. At this moment. (As you're reading this boys and girls our age are out there on the streets shooting and screaming and dying.) What Moore dares to show us is that behind the parade of casualties that makes a blip each night on our television news, there are, in fact, family after family after family left with nothing but their own incalcuable grief. Duh, I knew that, I hear you saying, but see the film and not be moved by the stories of our soldiers and of their families, and not for a split-second realize that this war is real and painful and horrible and not understand, just for that moment, what it might feel like to sacrifice a loved one to a war that needn't have been fought.
See this movie. See it now.
I'm not going to involve myself in the particulars of the debate as to whether or not Fahrenheit 9/11 is a distorted picture of what's been going on the last four years, because it is and it isn't. Just as Moore twists and misrepresents certain facts, so have our elected officials. If we can agree that Moore's unscrupulous editing is cause to boycott his film, certainly we can agree that the larger and more deadly lies this administration has knowingly stated and perpetuated represent just cause for its ouster? And if that's too bold a conclusion for you, consider this: We swallow 24/7 whatever the government presents to us as fact (even if it often isn't), so certainly we can endure two hours of one man's researched, though admittedly flawed, counterpoint: Call it a bi-partisan solution.
Seriously, though, what surprised me after finally seeing the Fahrenheit 9/11 was how these facts we seem now to be lost in ferocious debate are, in fact, of minimal importance in the overall context of the movie. I say this because I believe that for the majority of open-minded, curious, Americans, Fahrenheit 9/11 is an incredibly moving and informative piece of cinema. Not so much for Moore's conspiracy theories and connect-the-dots games (though the connections between families Bush and Bin Laden are enlightening); rather, it's his amazing portrait of our invasion of Iraq, weaving the country's physical destruction together with the emotional devestation wreaked upon families' from both sides. (Note: At the showing I went to tonight, people in the audience were openly weeping--something I hadn't seen since Schindler's List--and this is in Salt Lake City of all places.)
Fahrenheit 9/11, at its best, is a brutal, sobering reminder that Iraq is a war. And it's going on now. At this moment. (As you're reading this boys and girls our age are out there on the streets shooting and screaming and dying.) What Moore dares to show us is that behind the parade of casualties that makes a blip each night on our television news, there are, in fact, family after family after family left with nothing but their own incalcuable grief. Duh, I knew that, I hear you saying, but see the film and not be moved by the stories of our soldiers and of their families, and not for a split-second realize that this war is real and painful and horrible and not understand, just for that moment, what it might feel like to sacrifice a loved one to a war that needn't have been fought.
See this movie. See it now.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
dark10x said:
I've heard him say in public that he doesn't care if people download his stuff, as long as no pirates make money from it.dark10x said:
I believe that woman figured Moore was staging an event with actors, and thus by asking for details she could trip them up.pestul said:The part of the film which was most meaningful to me, was when the woman who's child had perished in Iraq had to defend herself in front of the White House.. and the woman attacking only said something like "It's just a stage.." or whatever.. "Where did he die?" <-- I was thinking.. 'does it fucking matter bitch?'
Spectral Glider
Member
Here's an article from this morning's edition of my local newspaper that I feel is worth reading. It certainly leans in Moores favor, but also touches on both sides of the issue fairly well throughout. It even includes a paragraph on everyone's favorite 7 minutes:
Questioning government is common sense, not treason
Questioning government is common sense, not treason
CrimsonSkies
Member
This article http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ pretty much rips up Moore's movie.
The article sums up as thus:
The article sums up as thus:
mjq jazz bar
Banned
I KNOW YOU THINK YOU'RE REALLY COOL AND WITH THE NEWS, BUT WE'VE BEEN SEEING CHRIS HITCHENS'S ARTICLE POSTED REPEATEDLY SINCE THE MOVIE CAME OUT. STOP FUCKING POSTING IT.
CrimsonSkies
Member
I didn't know it had been posted. You can release your capslock. I didn't know it would cause you to spaz like a retarded moron to my post. I don't read this board much.
Carry on messageboard jockey.
Carry on messageboard jockey.
I didn't see Control Room, but the bit about the fallen Saddam statue is true. A reporter from the New York Times who was in Iraq at the time came to speak at my friend's college about honesty and integrity in the media, and he brought with him pictures that he took of the scene. There were only a small handful of people who were there cheering.eggplant said:
Interestingly enough, he also brought pictures with him from some European news outlets' coverage of the story, and their articles used the more accurate pictures, whereas in the U.S., the tight shots were used so as to make it look like there were hundreds of Iraqis there.
>>>pretty much rips a new one on the movie.
Fahrenheit 9/11:
The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
Fahrenheit 9/11:
The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
OG_Original Gamer
Member
When I think of the 7 minutes, what comes to mind is the Pentagon and the other plane that crashed because of passengers on the plane. I also think about the fact that new information about the attacks had previously been of larger scope. Los Angeles and other major cities, what if they had followed on the other attacks they had planned. The seven minutes he spends on that chair means, seven minutes gone that could have thwarted the other attacks. Bush is very lucky, it could have been alot worse. Nobody asking Bush to be a superhero. I wonder though, did FDR sit in his chair without responding to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
Demigod Mac
Member
Interesting - most of the criticism of Moore's film focuses on the first half, that being the Saudi-Bush-bin Laden connection.
The second half - raw footage of the Iraq war, gets relatively little criticism. Because, quite frankly, it's pretty much irrefutable.
The second half - raw footage of the Iraq war, gets relatively little criticism. Because, quite frankly, it's pretty much irrefutable.
talking head
Member
News editors told us that they were being "bombarded" with e-mails and calls from the White House (read: Karl Rove), trying to spin their way out of this mess by attacking it and attacking me. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn't seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know that it's filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they're consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.
michealmoore.com
oh SNAP!
michealmoore.com
oh SNAP!
talking head
Member
And I just saw the movie. Yes, the war footage was pretty tough to watch. Especially that old Iraqi woman wailing out to God about what had happened. Regardless of where they are from, their cultures and beliefs, etc, seeing those raw human emotions just kills me. And I'm not emo. I also feel bad for Cake for having their song being associated with those gross assholes.
talking head
Member
it also just came to mind that if Micheal Moore dies any time in the near future, from ANYTHING, be it a heart attack or a meteor hitting him or cancer, conspiracy theorists would have a field day for a long time to come.
I saw it last night.
I look at a lot of the major points this movie makes...and these are irrefutable.
1) Bush's ongoing business relationship with the Saudis.
2) Bush didn't do much while in office.
3) The war in Afghanistan focused more on ousting the Taliban than eliminating Al Qaeda.
4) The Patriot Act is a heinous blow to freedom in the US, and is ineffective in stopping terrorists.
5) There are backwards policies when dealing with the issue of Homeland Security.
6) The Bush Admin was actively looking for excuses to invade Iraq.
7) The Invasion of Iraq caused more suffering among ordinary Iraqis.
8) There is a lot of money to be made by the Invasion.
9) Large Corporations are profiting off American taxpayers and Iraqi assets (the Iraqi people had no say in who will buy what they effectively have title to).
Most of these points are well known to those who bothered to educate themselves on the issue. The "Blood for Oil" arguement didn't come from nowhere. This film is very important in educating those who didn't understand those who spoke out against an invasion of Iraq.
I look at a lot of the major points this movie makes...and these are irrefutable.
1) Bush's ongoing business relationship with the Saudis.
2) Bush didn't do much while in office.
3) The war in Afghanistan focused more on ousting the Taliban than eliminating Al Qaeda.
4) The Patriot Act is a heinous blow to freedom in the US, and is ineffective in stopping terrorists.
5) There are backwards policies when dealing with the issue of Homeland Security.
6) The Bush Admin was actively looking for excuses to invade Iraq.
7) The Invasion of Iraq caused more suffering among ordinary Iraqis.
8) There is a lot of money to be made by the Invasion.
9) Large Corporations are profiting off American taxpayers and Iraqi assets (the Iraqi people had no say in who will buy what they effectively have title to).
Most of these points are well known to those who bothered to educate themselves on the issue. The "Blood for Oil" arguement didn't come from nowhere. This film is very important in educating those who didn't understand those who spoke out against an invasion of Iraq.
Fight for Freeform said:
I agree with all those points, except for no. 7. Its hard to believe how many people say that, and everytime I hear it, i get a rush in body. Do you know how incorrect that statement is? Do you have any idea as to what life was before the invasion? ANY AT ALL. Please tell me what you know about an iraqi's life before the removal of Saddam.
*raises hand* May I?
Iraq was more stable with Saddam and far fewer people died or were injured. Still, in the long-term, if they can get a decent democracy running and things settle down, Iraq will obviously be better off than if they were still ruled by Saddam.
However, and I think this is what you wanted, besides the footage from Fahrenheit 9/11, there was a special aired up here in Canada. Pierre Trudeau's son was in Iraq before, during, and after the war. He stayed with a large family. Despite Saddam, they had quite a good quality of life and deeply regretted the deaths and destruction caused by the war.
One lady, who had lived in America for several years prior and spoke fairly good English, said: "They have destroyed our beautiful city." I was pretty surprised at that - never thought someone could feel that way about Baghdad. But she was pretty shaken.
Many people are happy that he's gone, but those more affected by the war are definitely not so jubilant. It's all very subjective, definitive to each individual.
It's impossible to simply say if Iraq is presently better or worse off.
Firest0rm said:
I've never lived there, but I've been keeping close eyes on the bloggers. Some are happy, others hate the present Iraq... I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don't know how it can be said that things are anything better in Iraq right now. The instability is hopefully temporary, but it's made for a country that's not exactly safe -- almost certainly less safe for civilians than it was before the invasion.
Here are a couple of interesting links:
Highly recommended, U.S. journalist reporting from Iraq: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
Iraqi blogs (unhappy):
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Iraqi blogs (happy -- I think):
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
-SB
Cohen's review of Farhrenheit 9/11 gets coverage by everyone's favorite anti-pundit...
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070204.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070204.shtml
- Status