revel wrote:I seen the film, I don't remember all of it. On the whole I found it to be troubling with all the connections between the Bush family and royal Saudi family. I also found it troubling to see how the army recruiters go after the poor neighborhoods and poor neighborhood stores and tell them how much how much better they can improve their lives if they join the service. I think of them as army pimps. I also found it troubling that as our service men and women are driving those tanks and fighter jets things they are listening to violent hate filled music; there were interviews direct from the soldiers themselves talking about it as though nothing was wrong with it. I also found it troubling at just how many people we killed in the invasion of Iraq. Those were the kinds of things I paid attention to the most and I would imagine that they are not made up. As for all the political stuff--I really didn't pay attention to most of it and if turns out to where some facts were distorted or wrong, then it still don't take away from what I found to be most depressing about the film.
I haven't seen the film, but I do know that the medium of film can be a powerful tool for propaganda. Skillful film editing can create fiction out of reality. Having seen Bowling for Colombine and reading some of his works, it appears clear to me that Moore is quite capable of manipulating the truth to advance his personal take on things. So, without having seen this film, I don't think it's a stretch to find its critics credible.
The Bush family was/is in the oil business. The Saudi Royal Family is in the oil business. It shouldn't be surprising that there are connections. What has been done with and through these connections is a legitimate issue for discussion. I have to admit that I have not studied the subject all that much, but assume (as I tend to assume with most charges made from the shadows against major politicians - Left or Right) that if there was any real meat on the bone, it would have been exposed by the major (and respected) news media: NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Network news programs, Time magazine etc etc. Maybe I slept through the exposure of the Bush/Saudi Family Scandals, but I haven't seen it.
Having said this, I am troubled by how the Saudis seem to be coddled, but I don't believe there is anything more to it than our economic dependence upon oil. There is, almost certainly, some influence exerted on this administration by the American oil industry, just as there will be influence exerted on a Kerry/Edwards Administration by the Trial Lawyer's Bar. People are not elected to the presidency without the help of powerful and wealthy allies. Would that it were otherwise, and we should measure the candidates based upon how strong the influence is and may be, but it is what it is.
One of the few positions Kerry has taken that resonates with me is a national effort to develop energy alternatives to oil. Make no mistake though, there are special interests in this arena as well, and some that haven't even surfaced yet. Commercial alternative energy sources will, eventually create wealth and power which will seek to influence politicians. The folks who end up selling us any new energy source developed will not be a commune of tree hugging Greenies who ask only that we all plant a flower for every unit of new fuel we consume.
Young Americans are driving their cars around the streets of their country listening to
violent hate filled music, and if you interviewed them, they would think there is nothing wrong with it. It's not as if the Army issues an Eminem or Bloodhound Gang CD with every soldier's kit. I can't stand the genre, but it's not unique to the young men and women in Iraq. The juxtaposition of popular music and combat/violence is probably very striking: It was in "Full Metal Jacket," and "Natural Born Killers" among others. Here we have a case of life imitating art. Is it surprising that these kids want a soundtrack playing on their experiences and that they are going to draw upon the popular music that they feel fits the experience? If this disturbs you, you need to explore the roots, not one of the flowers.
People die in wars, civilians as well as soldiers. I don't recall anyone in the Administration or military claiming that civilians were not being killed. Did they focus on it? No, but it would be rather peculiar for a military that is pursuing the goal of conquering a country to send home bloody photos of the civilians who have been killed or maimed in the effort.
Frankly, if anyone thought such things weren't happening in this war, they were kidding themselves, not being lied to by the government. Does an adult need to be told that when bombs reign down on a city, no matter how precise their targeting may be, civilians are going to die? The military made much of the precision of their weapons, and the media trumpeted it, and perhaps because they both were aware of the extent of the carnage resulting from less precise weapons.
War
is hell and I don't know why people need to be shown pictures to appreciate this, but if they do, then they should be shown the pictures.
They do need to know that what is actually happening is not a Hollywood film, and that real people, and not just soldiers, are being killed and maimed. It makes support for a war difficult, which it should be. It needn't make it impossible though, because at the same time it is important to reveal the truth in the same graphic manner of what reality would be without war.
The only thing I can really say about the film is that it is a work of art, which means, for good or bad, it is one person's representation of reality; subject to bias, manipulation and downright falsity. Viewers who keep this in mind when they see it will probably, at least, have a thoughtful experience; those who do not, well they're liable to believe
anything they see or hear on a
screen - like that John Kerry can pay for all of his grand proposals by simply rolling back the Bush tax cuts on 2% of the American public.
