Groon - I agree too. But that's simply not a viable option.
Cheers, Translator

After reading all of the opinions purported on the board I couldn't help but put my two cents in. I am aware that my opinion carries no more weight than anyone elses. nonetheless I am compelled to share it.
But first a little background info.

After WWII, it was considered that access to oil was an essential factor in the Allied victory, and access to large oil supplies would be critical to future US success. It was concluded that Saudi Arabia possessed the most prolific supply of untapped oil. An arrangement was made between Roosevelt and the King of S. Arabia that the US would provide S. Arabia protection in exchange for American access to Saudi oil, an arrangement that stil exists today.
As a result of this arrangement, US military presence has steadily expanded in the region, and has become deeply involved in Saudi's security structure. In addition, the regime has become wealthy which has alienated the regime from its people. In reponse the regime has outlawed any form of political debate (no parliament, no free speech, no political party, no right of assembly), and uses the US trained security to quash any expressions of dissent. There are more human rights violations in Saudi Arabia than anywhere else in the Mid East.

These consequences are what generated rebel groups such as Osama bin Laden and have allowed him to obtain a following. And is why the majority of individuals involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq.

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that these individuals are justified in their actions. The utilization of terror is never a justified reponse. I would merely like to point out that their actions were not a religous duty. No where in Islamic doctrine is murder of any type justified.

It is disheartening to admit that innocent people died as a result of consequences created by our international policy. It is also distressing to admit that our government boasts about providing freedom and democracy to one country while deprives another of it in order to obtain profits for oil companies and secure enough oil for our Hummer loving consumers. It is easy to pretend that we are not in any way responsible of the suffering of other people. We value our comfort and peace of mind too much.

Again, do not misinterpret me. I am proud to be American. I am proud that, unlike Saudi's, I have the right to speak my opinion, and so does M. Moore. I have a say in who rules my country. And I have the right to disagree with my governments decisions. Dissent is not UnAmerican.

Havenly700,

Of course dissent is not un-American. Especially when dissent is expressed so civilly as yours. But, a few points, if I may:

I�m not as familiar with the history of the United States and Saudi Arabia as you are but there�s an area you might want to clear up: You mentioned that our policy with Saudi Arabia came about after WWII but that an arrangement was made between Roosevelt and the King of S. Arabia. Of course, Roosevelt was no longer alive after WWII. So I�m a little confused on this point. Could you set me straight?

� I don�t think I can agree with you that Osama and the other terrorist groups are rebel groups because of the alleged oppressions you list. It seems these guys are more Islamo-fascists, intent on putting themselves in power and granting no more rights than those in power already grant. Perhaps even less.

� I don�t know much about Islam but I�d be willing to go along with you that terrorist acts aren�t really endorse by that religion. Osama and company, however, justify their actions by the edicts of Islam. I blame them more than the religion since millions more Muslims seem to be able to resist the urge to fly jetliners into our skyscrapers.

� I thinks its fair to say that all actions carry unintended consequences but I�m not sure I�ll go all the way with you and agree that our policies have caused the direct suppression of the Saudi people. Nor will I agree with you that our policy intended to insure oil company profits, though I�m not sympathetic at all to oil companies. Finally, cheap, reliable sources of oil benefit more than those of us with Hummers. A recent trip on our Interstates reminded me just how much of our quality of life depends on our goods and services being shipped inter- and intra-state by truckers. Switch to electric cars or mass transit or even bicycle or foot-power, but you�ll still be relying on cheap oil for much of your lifestyle.

Mr. Moore certainly has a right to express an opinion. But he often distorts facts for his own benefit. Not that different than anyone else? Okay. But then you begin to see why some people speak out so forcefully against him.

Perhaps that was some of what was behind Bradbury�s objection.

Best,

Pete

June 17, 2004

Friends,

We're a week away from the nationwide opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and not a day goes by where we don't have some new battle to fight thanks to those who are still working overtime to keep people from seeing this film. What's their problem? Are they worried about something?

A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11." These are the same people who successfully badgered CBS into canceling the Reagan mini-series a few months ago. And they are spending a ton of money this week to threaten movie theaters who even think about showing our movie.

As of this morning, a little over 500 theaters have agreed to show the movie beginning next Friday, June 25. There are three national/regional theater chains who, as of today, have not booked the movie in their theaters. One theater owner in Illinois has reported receiving death threats.

The right wing usually wins these battles. Their basic belief system is built on censorship, repression, and keeping people ignorant. They want to limit or snuff out any debate or dissension. They also don't like pets and are mean to small children. Too many of them are named "Fred."

This new nut group is the Right's last hope in limiting how many people can see this movie. All of their other efforts have failed.. Let's recap:

1. Roger Friedman at FOX News reported that the head of the company which first agreed to fund our film �got calls from Republican friends� pressuring them to back out. And they did. But... Miramax immediately picked up the film! Except...

2. Michael Eisner, the chairman of Disney, then blocked Miramax (a company owned by Disney) from releasing the film once it was finished. But... public attention and embarrassment forced Disney to let the Weinstein brothers of Miramax find another distributor! But...



3. Instead of a new distributor stepping right in -- as all the media predicted would happen -- it took another month to find distributors who would take on this movie. A number of other distributors, thanks to various pressures, were afraid to get involved. It looked for a while that we would be distributing this ourselves. But then Lions Gate and IFC Films rode in to the rescue!

So, we have beaten back all attempts to kill this movie, and the only thing in the way of you now seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" is this Republican big-money front group trying to force theaters not to show the movie.

Please, contact your local theaters and let them know you want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." Tell them that some people don't know that this is America and that we believe in freedom of speech and the importance of ALL voices being heard. (The members of MoveOn.org�an ACTUAL grassroots organization�have done a very cool thing. They are pledging to send a message to theater owners and are planning to attend a showing of the film on its opening weekend.)

I appreciate their efforts, but you don�t have to be a member of MoveOn to help stop this effort to keep �Fahrenheit 9/11� from making it to screens across the country. If a theater in your area is planning to show the film, just give them a call and thank them for standing up for the freedom of speech. If your local theater isn't showing the film, call them and let them know that you would like to see it and you'd like them to show it.

The White House and their minions in our media have presented one distorted version of the truth after another for the past four years. All we are asking for is the right to show what they HAVEN'T shown us, the real truth. The truth that ain't pretty (and is, sadly, damningly hilarious).

On top of all this, the MPAA gave the film an "R" rating. I want all teenagers to see this film. There is nothing in the film in terms of violence that we didn't see on TV every night at the dinner hour during the Vietnam War. Of course, that's the point, isn't it? The media have given the real footage from Iraq a "cleansing" -- made it look nice, easy to digest. Mario Cuomo has offered to be our lawyer in appealing this ruling by the MPAA. Frankly, I would like to think the MPAA is saying that the actions by the Bush administration are so abhorrent and revolting, we need to protect our children from seeing what they have done. In that case, the film should be rated NC-17!

However it turns out, I trust all of you teenagers out there will find your way into a theater to see this movie. If the government believes it is OK to send slightly older teenagers to their deaths in Iraq, I think at the very least you should be allowed to see what they are going to draft you for in a couple of years.

Finally, some very sophisticated individuals have been hacking into and shutting down our website. It is an hourly fight to keep it up. We are going to find out who is doing this and we are going to pursue a criminal prosecution. I'm preparing lots of cool stuff for the site so watch for new items on it next week (www.fahrenheit911.com and www.michaelmoore.com).

Thanks again for your support and I hope to see you at the movies on opening night, June 25.

Yours,

Michael Moore


PS. I am sponsoring a number of benefits around the country next week for local and national peace and justice groups, including Military Families Speak Out and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Please check your local papers and my website next week for further details.

PPS. Also, I am going to be on the �Late Show with David Letterman� on Friday night. It's on CBS at 11:35 PM Eastern and Pacific. And on Monday morning (June 21) I will be on �The Today Show� on NBC. Next week, Jon Stewart and Conan. I'd go on O'Reilly but, like a coward, he walked out on a screening we invited him to (with Al Franken just a few rows away!). I personally caught him sneaking out. Embarrassed, he tried to change the subject. He said, "When are you coming on my show?" and I said, "Turn around and watch the rest of the movie and I will come on your show." He walked out. Fair and balanced.

Looks like Michael Moore was inspired by Ray.
Ray however, isn't returning the compliment.
Why?

Perhaps Ray supports Bush, which would certainly diminish his intellectual stature considerably among thinking Americans. Or, he's actually learned a trick from Michael; generate some publicity and sell some books. After all, Ray's way past cutting-edge these days, and cashing in on Fahrenheit 9/11's success would be pretty smart. The pity is that Ray's position paints him as either churlish and petty, or a Bush supporter.

Kamajii:

You're wrong. You belong to another generation of thinking and Ray belongs to another generation of thinking., The two don't mix here. It is so far more complex and so far less complicated, both at the same time.

This thing with the title use went back all the way to the fall of last year, 2003. The death of Ray's wife, of many years, around Thanksgiving, didn't keep this issue of title-use in the fore front of his interest.

Anyway, Ray really didn't really think anybody would go ahead and use a title so closely associated with a living author. Nothing more to it than that! Believe me!

I am also very disappointed in Mr. Bradbury. To say the things he's said about Michael Moore and to take issue with using a title close to his title. Get real, get over yourself! I would think as a free thinker he would be happy about Moore speaking out about Bush and his incompetency. A real eye opener about Mr. Bradbury, not the person I thought he was.

Triped, you are a fool to not see that dissent is the most American trait of all. That is why this country was formed, to be free to dissent against a repressive regime.

boosemun:

Free speech exercised here:
__________________________________
You are an Idiot !
__________________________________
Now you can let that pass,
defend against it,
or return the compliment.

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 06-27-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Kamajii:
Looks like Michael Moore was inspired by Ray.
Ray however, isn't returning the compliment.
Why?

Perhaps Ray supports Bush, which would certainly diminish his intellectual stature considerably among thinking Americans. Or, he's actually learned a trick from Michael; generate some publicity and sell some books. After all, Ray's way past cutting-edge these days, and cashing in on Fahrenheit 9/11's success would be pretty smart. The pity is that Ray's position paints him as either churlish and petty, or a Bush supporter.

Escuse me, but where are you getting these theories of yours? Do you have anything more solid then a rambling with no backbone?

And, books aren't like movies. They don't age the same way.

Btw I think you're a Bush supporter. It was in a Swedish interview. You work for him.

Question: Since when does Ray Bradbury have copywrite of the German Language.....
Before I get a weather report I guess Ray, must give permission for the weather mean to give us the temperatures too.

quote:

Originally posted by bocaraton:
Did anyone else read Bradbury's comments regarding Michael Moore in some Swedish interview? If the translation is correct, it is VERY disappointing to see RB be so out to lunch as to say the French gave Moore the Palme d'Or because they hate Americans (2 of the 3 judges were American, you old coot), and that no one is going to see the film anyway. Crazy! I love Ray Bradbury, and was crestfallen to see him make such an ass of himself. Sure, there might be an argument for copyright infringement, but relax, Ray, and let this important documentary do some good for the world. Sheesh!

pterran,

To clarify the arrangement between Roosevelt, Herbert Feis (The State Departments economic advisor) and King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud. The arrangement took place in 1945 after the Yalta conference. This agreement is entirely based on oil access and does constitute the essential core of the US - Saudi relationship.

I agree with you that Osama himself may not be rebelling against these oppressions caused by the Saudi-US relationship. However, he does use these oppressions to gain his following. Osama uses the fact that people are being oppressed by this relationship to gain a following. What really matters is that these oppressed people are desperate for someone to liberate them. They follow Osama because he offers them liberation. Tell the people what they want to hear and they will follow you. Happens all the time in US politics and it works. I do not agree with Osama. I merely have sympathy for the oppressed people of Saudi Arabia.

There are extremist versions of Islam just as there are extreme versions of Christianity. A Parallel can be made between Osama and Jerry Fallwell. Not all Christians agree with Jerry Fallwell's interpretation in Christianity, just as many Muslims do not agree with Osama's interpretation of Islam. As a writer, I am sure you'll agree that anything, especially religion, can be distorted to benefit ones interests. In this instance, Osama has two ways to gain a following of desperate salvation seekers.

I uderstand that oil benefits more than just Hummer advocates. But I couldn't help but make the exagerated comment out of a personal prejudice caused by the fact that almost every household in my neighborhood owns an SUV and that my governor owns five Hummers. The american people are a bit excessive and that cannot be denied.

There are ways to curtail oil usage. Many countries have even begun to do so. I in no way endorse the abolishment of oil. It has been locked in to our structure by many obvious circumstancs that I will not elaborate on. But we can supplement it to curtail it. Why haven't we done this yet? Because oil companies lobby against it. Yes, oil companies number one concern is profits. There concern is not just to ensure adequate supplies of oil so all of our deliveries can be made. They ensure adequate supplies so that they can make money off the fact that deliveries have to me made. But just because they have adequate supplies of oil does no tmean that they make adequate supplies of refined gas available. In fact they are careful not to make excess amounts of refined gas available to keep the prices high. If oil companies cared less about profits and more about our truckers then they wouldn't avoid refining excess gas supplies to keep the prices high.

I appreciate your opinion and comments. It invokes thought and forced me to better clarify my assertions.

Regards,
Sonya

Pterran,
Some very good points, I couldn't agree more.

Translator,
You agreed that partisan politics are a waste of time, but also said that ending them is "simply not a viable option." Feel free to expand, please, because I think this could be an interesting conversation. I say this in all good will.

Well, Sonya,
welcome to the board (actually, you've already been welcomed, so I'm kind of introducing myself).
I like both your style, as well as your message. I agree with a great deal of what you're saying.

Cheers, Translator

Hey Translator,

Thanks for the compliment.

Sonya