And pterran, man, calling war an "unpleasant business" is like calling outer space a big open area. We are talking about babies dying, homes being destroyed, men and women in the prime of their lives being maimed and killed. That's why Moore put those images in his film: to make it clear that we're not talking about an "unpleasant business" we're talking about horror, we're talking about insanity, we're talking about evil, we're talking about the greatest atrocity that mankind inflicts upon it's own kind short of outright genocide. My home has never been run over by a tank, my place of business has never been taken out by a "smart" bomb, has yours? Maybe you'd think of war differently then. I don't know about you, bro, but I'm not going up to somebody whose baby or mother just got killed by a bomb and telling them "well, yes, this IS an unpleasant business." Or telling someone else their son or daughter dying horrifically thousands of miles from home in a war that is not justified that this is an "unpleasant business". You can say what you want about Michael Moore but at least he has the decency to portray war for what it is to those who see it as an "unpleasant business". It's amazing to me how many of you hate Moore and the movie AND HAVEN'T GONE TO SEE IT! How the hell do you know what you're mad at him for? That's like holding your hands over your ears and yelling "lalala, I'm not listening, I'm not listening". How can we have a discussion if you refuse to even engage the conversation? Answer this: if you had inisputable proof--never mind what that is for right now--but if you had indisputable proof that what the government was doing was wrong, perhaps even criminal would you do what you could to stop it? Or would you consider that unpatriotic?

Sorry, I wrote that last one before even seeing if I'd been responded too. Please, John Galt, don't call me ignorant. I'm not. I intensely disagree with you and many others on this page but not because I'm ignorant. Insults and name calling lead to death of dialogue and dialogue is our only hope.
I'm not sure why you're so focused on Bush waiting 7 minutes but brother, you really need to see the movie. That was only one, very minor, fact that Moore pointed out. I wish Moore hadn't spent so much time trying to portray Bush as a fool. I feel lke that immediately makes well, people like you tune him out. And I wish Moore hadn't spent so much time with this woman who didn't realize war was a terrible thing until HER son got killed.

But there are so many questions presented in that movie that WE, the American people have to answer! I am not a Democrat. I am not a liberal. I don't even like John Kerry. One of the great political tragedies of this country in this new century is that Bush and Kerry are our choices for leaders. I don't admit to any liberal bias in the media because I don't see it. Right now the Administration is pointing fingers at the CIA and Israel(our ally) for getting it wrong and the CIA is saying "hey, it wasn't us!" Doesn't this worry you guys? There should be no fingerpointing at all when we are talking about people dying and a nation being desrtroyed. When we go to WAR of all things shouldn't we be crystal clear?? Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Christian, Muslim, whatever can't we agree on that? Why are we there?!?!?!?!

Beirut Wedding,

It�s clear you�re passionate in your beliefs. But, once again, it looks like I might have to clarify a point or two. Bear with me, please.

When I say that war is an �unpleasant business,� I�m using understatement to make a point. (Remember the scene in Dr. Strangelove when General Buck Turgidson says, �I�m not saying we won�t get our hair mussed. We�ll lose 10, 20 million tops?� The character was serious but the situation was ridiculous. Sort of the effect I was going for but, well, it seems it fell flat.) That point is: Moore tells us nothing new about war. War is terrible, we can all agree. Something to be avoided, if possible. But not to be avoided at the risk of our own safety. That�s the context that Moore leaves out. (In the scenes from 9/11, he creates a powerful effect by going to a blank screen and letting the sounds of the day wash over he viewer. But imagine the power of the scene if he had chosen to show the innocent victims from that day plunging to their deaths. I wonder why he chose not to show the graphic handiwork of the terrorists? You�ve seen the movie. What�s your opinion?) Certainly I would never use that kind of wry understatement when discussing war with a victim of war. But for the sake of a Bradbury discussion board, I thought it was entirely appropriate. Yours is the first objection.

No, I have not seen the movie and I�ve made no secret of that. All I can do is respond to posts like yours and try to find out about the movie the best I can. Does that disqualify me from discussing the merits or flaws of the movie? I say it doesn�t. (I have no desire to support Moore and his efforts. And, frankly, I can�t come to the movie without my own bias. Did you approach the movie with a fair and open mind? You did? Well, good for you! But I suspect the movie only confirmed your beliefs. If so, how does qualify you for discussing the merits of the movie?)

If you�re still in the dark about why we went to war, well, I can�t help you my friend. In an open society like ours, information abounds. You just might not like what you see. Fair enough. But you certainly don�t need the likes of Moore to open your eyes.

Best,

Pete

What we disagree on bro, is who's in the dark about why we went to war and who is putting their head in the sand. The reasons behind us being involved in this war (WMD's, connections to al-Quaeda and "freeing the Iraqi people"--the most heinous and cynical) have been proven faulty at best and possibly criminal at worst. That's not my reasoning and it's not Michael Moore's. That's the evidence turning up all around us. People from the CIA itself are saying "we told the administration there was no reason to go to Iraq and they told us--'find one'". Again, that's not me and that's not Moore, that's the CIA. Every day the administration is finding someone else to blame. I don't think it should matter who's in office or what party they're from -- when we're talking about war that should never happen.

[This message has been edited by Beirut Wedding (edited 07-26-2004).]

Telling him he's putting his head in the sand? Isn't that name-calling? Something you just finished saying stifles discussion.

"We are talking about babies dying, homes being destroyed, men and women in the prime of their lives being maimed and killed."

Man, sorry to tell you, but that's what we're talking about in "peace".

It was merely posed as a question. But I suppose I did cross the line a bit when I insinuated that if you believed whatever it was I was asking about that you were ignorant. But I believed the method I used is the same that you went on to use w/ the heads in the sand comment.


Back to the issue though... I'd like to quote an article here written by Thomas Sowell called "Irresponsible Politics" which can be found here http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell070804.asp His archive of articles can be found here http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.archives.asp


"What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations. But, without that pre-emptive strike, the outcome of both Gulf wars could have been tragically different.

Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

More than a decade of playing cat-and-mouse with international weapons inspectors raised more and more suspicions about Iraq's weapons programs, and various nations' intelligence services reported that in fact he was back to his old tricks and developing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a major threat.

Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

Were all these people wrong? While that is possible, it is also possible that Saddam Hussein used the long months between the time when the threat of invasion was debated at the United Nations and the time when it actually occurred to dismantle his weapons facilities and disperse them, perhaps to some neighboring country."

I think it speaks for itself.


"I don't even like John Kerry. One of the great political tragedies of this country in this new century is that Bush and Kerry are our choices for leaders"

There's one comment I totally agree w/ you on.

[This message has been edited by John Galt (edited 07-27-2004).]

No, I don't think saying someone is putting their head in the sand as name calling. It's not worth arguing about. That certainly wasn't my intention. I won't run from it though. As I said, we're in disagreement about whose head is in said condition, me or you all.

Over the years we have given much more money, weapons and training to Iraq than any one else. More and more it is becoming apparent that the people we were getting our intelligience from were people who had defected from Iraq and had a specific agenda behind telling us what we want to hear. And apparently, yes, the U.S., Britain and Russia were wrong. Isn't this what we've been learning week by week for at least the past year? Again, our own intelligience people, people whose jobs were solely dealing with terrorism are jumping ship, writing books for pete's sake, saying they told the administration not to do it. And I don't absolve Saddam Hussein of responsibility. As I said, again, he has a big mouth. He's a big talker who can't back it up. WE KNEW THAT AT THE LAST GULF WAR. And up until July and August 2oo1 BUSH'S PEOPLE WERE SAYING THE SAME THING. I mean, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell (who stayed against theidea of going to war until forced to back the party line.). So are you saying that after 9/11 Saddam went into attack mode against the U.S.? Heck, he's never threatened the U.S. at all except when we said we were going over there.

Besides, my whole point in the beginning was primarily this: I think all of you who support Bush and this war are tragically mistaken. That does not make me or Michael Moore un-patriotic, that does not make me a terrorist(I mean, really!) and that doesn't mean I --or Michael Moore--hate my country. I love this country. Flat out.

I'm not saying you hate America at all... Michael Moore, however, has made and is continuing to make comments that are downright Anti-American which is what would cause me to believe that he hates America.

Beirut Wedding,
my hat off to you, sir. I must say that you write what I think with much the better eloquence.
Before you go on, I seriously urge you to check out the "Ruled Paper" discussion that went on for a few months prior to your appearnce. Not because I was involved - I was - but because it will give you great insight into what sort of things to expect out of such conversation. Scroll to the beginning, and just read.
The discussion is broken at places - ie, a sub-discussion started in "What Are you reading" and was moved to the "Ruled Paper" - but I think it is generally ok for the most part. Once again, hats off.

Cheers, Translator

Thanx Translator. Seriously. I know I'm new on the scene(though a Bradbury fan for life) but I hope that everybody understands that hey, we're trying to figure this stuff out, right here on this page, along with the rest of the country. I'm off to check out the above mentioned discussion. Peace.

Greetings all. I am new to this site. I am a bit overwhelmed by the profusion of topics, but this one's title attracted me because I have been contemplating the nature of obligation in our free society.

I hear arguments that say 'questioning the government is our obligation..' as if that were the sole reason (dissent) for doing anything at all in response to our privilege as participants in political thought.

I think this is ironic, and exactly the kind of mental straight jacket that is presented in Fahrenhiet (Bradbury's) and much of Orwell's work. In a democracy of the people, it is the individual motivation of the people, their moral compass, their ability to sift information that determines the nature of what Plato called the worst form of tyranny; Democracy. If your constant motivation is to be some iconoclastic hero, forever fighting the evil rich, the evil corporations, the warmongers, the liberal elites, the biased media, the fundamentalist right - then you have imposed a very tight censorship upon yourself and your own practices of belief. I guess I am talking about doxologic hygene. To illustrate:
Since Bush is evil because he is rich and believes strongly in a narrow religion, he must also be in league with cynical corporations whose members are evil because they are rich and powerful. Together, these people can only bring about evil things like wars and poverty, because they are not capable of open, questioning minds like mine. Paradoxically, all the complicated plans that these people are hatching, with far reaching global effects and history altering decisions are being brougt about by stupid people. These people are stupid because they do not have questioning, protesting minds like mine. After all, protest and unwillingness to settle on a truth is the noble nature of the electorate, to the exclusion of all other narrow visions of the mind that used to be called 'virtues'.

The mind that discards the stories of the past, like the burner of books, is doomed to stumble from best buy to wal-mart, loudly complaining about the horror of the status quo.

Here is a story of the past - a burned book: Abe Lincoln versus George McClellan in the campaign of 1864. McClellan was a comfortable protestor. McClellan thought war was wrong, evil was due to ignorance, and at the same time that Lincoln was a brutish yet somehow masterful dictator.

Michael Moore's movie done in 1864 would have found the same audience it does today. Psuedo free thinkers who wish to have their itching ears scratched, and it would have had much more startling conspiracies to titillate the yawning ignorance of its audience with.

Moore is an ideologue and a censor of the worst kind, gaining his ascendency because of the cattle he detests, yet feeds upon.

So what exactly are you saying? Nail it down a bit; your post is well-written, but I don't quite get your argument. Are you saying that those fighting the evils are behaving like Don-Quixsotes? Are you saying that we should all accept the status quo? Are you saying that we shouldn't question the government? What exactly are you saying?

Cheers, Translator

It seems to me like there is much discussion on Michael Moore and his "stealing" Bradbury's title, but there is nobody truly looking at why Moore used the title Farenheit 9/11. Shortly after the tragedy that happened on September 11th President Bush passed the Patriot Act, allowing the government more power to censor people or organizations it deems "unpatriotic". This draws similarities to F451 in which there is obvious censorship.
Now, on the topic of Michael Moore being a traitor, I would say he most definetly is not. How could a person who releases knowledge to the public be a traitor? The right-wing is quick to deem anybody who does not agree with our current president as unpatriotic. It seems to me that everyone forgot 8 years ago when almost every Republican on Capitol Hill was pushing for the impeachment on President Clinton, which in my mind was not only best President for our economy but also for our National Defense. If President Bush were truly sincere about fighting terrorism he would've made fighting terrorism a priority after the CIA and FBI confirmed that Al Qaeda was responsible for the murder of our servicemen in Yemen aboard the U.S.S. Cole. Or maybe President Bush could spend some more time in Washington working on our nations problems instead of leaving for his ranch in Texas every 3 or 4 months.

Everyone,

I've been a good boy lately and kept quiet but Fischer's post screams for these clarifications:

1.) President Bush SIGNED the Patriot Act into law. He didn't pass anything into law. Congress, of course, has the power to make laws. Bush can only approve. Got a problem with the Patriot Act? There's plenty of blame to go around besides Bush.

2.) Agree or disagree with The Patriot Act, the Act doesn't "allow the government more power to censor people or organizations it deems "unpatriotic"."

The rest of your post I'll leave unaddressed in the spirit of keeping this board more Bradbury oriented. Just didn't want people like Fischer holding views based on information that was so obviously wrong.

Best,

Pete