Michael Moore Forum

Michael Moore

Forum

best writer ever ...

>>By typ aus hamburg city (Saturday, 3 Jul 2004 18:38)

He is good, but that is a pretty big brag.

>>By brosius (Saturday, 3 Jul 2004 20:45)

Michael Moore is not really a writer in the sense of writing fiction, so to discuss whether he is good from a litterary context is a bit misplaced. The point is that he is a very important opinion maker and discloser of american lies. If he manages to get Bush out of office he should have the Nobel peace prize.

>>By Ingevara (Sunday, 1 Aug 2004 11:21)

I recently went on holiday. Two weeks in the sun, beer and cheap cigarettes! What more could you want...
My best friend handed me a book after i finished P J Tracy's Want to Play, amazing! This particular book was Stupid White men. I was gripped from cover to cover to learn of the deceit and forgery of the American Government.
He is truly a genius, comic yet serious. Brilliant.
Me being English and anti Blair, revelled in it!

>>By Eat_the_Rich (Thursday, 12 Aug 2004 17:53)

anti Bush sorry
Tony Blair is a wonderful Prime Minister, and I most definately will vote labour!

>>By Eat_the_Rich (Thursday, 12 Aug 2004 17:54)

anti bush yet pro blair strikes me as paradoxical considering Blair barks when Bush tells him to.

>>By granther (Tuesday, 17 Aug 2004 01:41)

Thats true, but do you think that Howard could do a better job at the moment. The conservtives are gaining a bit more support since iraq and if blair does anything else stupid then the torries will probobaly be in downing street again in a couple of elections time.

>>By Mickalos (Monday, 30 Aug 2004 02:29)

At the risk of going 'off subject' it really doesn't matter who the British electorate vote for since they're all promising the same things - the things that will get them votes - probably without any intention of delivering.

Anyway though, I started reading Dude Where's My Country? this morning, it's great. I've been slightly skeptical of the whole anti-Bush thing until recently, I thought Moore was just as manipulative as Bush, but the difference, Moore has done research and has facts.

>>By Flagg (Friday, 9 Sep 2005 21:50)

Hi all,

New to the Michael Moore board but was interested in knowing more about him. I'm a serving british soldier of over 20 years and have watch Bowling for Columbine (not sure of the correct spelling) and found it very informative and eye-opening. I enjoyed it immensly. However, I then watched Farenheit 9/11 and was rather disappointed. With regards to the Iraq conflict perspective there were many factual errors of which any person who has actually been to Iraq would pick up on. I understand that there are many conspiracy theories in the world of which most eminate from the US by a minority group. In my view I feel that Michael Moore has somewhat fallen into the Media/conspiracy theory path regards to Farenheit 9/11. Saying that, his personal view on terrorism (9/11) was quite interesting. We know that there are people who speak about the Iraq war being about oil, how it had nothing to do with Al-Quada and how wrong it was to happen, people with little or no actual experience with these things. We also know that the people who actually have experience with Iraq, terrorism and Iraqi people say different things, like myself. It would be interesting to learn how much research and experience Mr Moore has had in Iraq and with Iraqi citizens. I am totally anti-Bush but, like the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens, a supporter of both Blair and Bush concerning the Iraq war and campaigns against terrorism.

>>By Reginald (Monday, 12 Sep 2005 19:16)

Sometimes the truth isn't worth presenting if it isn't presented in the right way. Though many enjoy and appreciate Moore's style of delivery, it happens to open up many lines of counter-arguments, most of which are in the end a check against his own cause. The counter claims are often times fallacious in form and content, but since when has that ever stopped people from believing in them? Enough has been said against Moore while at the same time attaching him to a larger cause that the cause has become endangered. Not sure what the right move always is but sometimes it becomes clear when a person's work does more damage than progress.

>>By Hume Ungus (Monday, 12 Sep 2005 22:27)

Thanks for the post Hume Ungus. A very good post I might add. I just do not want to give the wrong impression to people about my overall view on Michael Moore and his work - of which is good. I just wanted to reiterate that much of his delivery is just his own opinion and not actually facts. My only argument has been regarding some terrorism and Iraq claims of which clearly are not factual - clear to anyone who has first-hand experience on such matters. For just an example, surely the best judge on what is right in the case of, say, the Iraq conflict and connecting terrorism links are the Iraqi people and not people who live thousands of miles away from Iraq. Or the people who work professionally in counter-terrorism, both in UK and USA, knowing just a bit more than say a person who works in a shop, factory or films etc and has no experience at all in counter-terrorist duties. Yet we are expected to believe the non-experienced. This is my only problem.

Regards

>>By Reginald (Tuesday, 13 Sep 2005 19:53)

It is difficult to know who knows what about the Iraq-Al Qaida connection. Even the majority of Iraqi people are most likely clueless by and large. According to Moore, we have more than a handful of individuals (and possible a few agencies) in this country who do in fact know more about the connection than most Iraqi citizens. Why? Because they are part of the connection! The problem in exposing these people is that they are in the position to systematically destroy their enemies. So when Moore gets a few dirty facts on them, he uses them, but it is never a knock-out punch. In the end the attack turns around and makes him and his cause look weak. This all gets attached to those on his "side" who are then perceived as weak as well. In fact, it does weaken them by eroding the larger case that COULD be made. What good is preaching to the choir anyway? I think the point is to convince those hanging on the fence and perhaps if the case is strong enough, those in stark opposition of thought. You cannot bring those people onto your side by looking weak.

>>By Hume Ungus (Wednesday, 14 Sep 2005 13:06)

Again Hume Ungus, thanks for your rational approach and view on the subject. I agree that quite a few people and agencies know considerably more about the Iraq/Al-Qaida connection than the typical Iraqi citizen. Such parties would include sections of the intelligence and defence services (both UK and USA) as well as the Iraqi interim government themselves. Though a number of Iraqi citizens talk about knowing about the connections, I find in my experience that it is indeed the minority. I understand that the Iraqi interim government and various Iraqi citizens know that Saddam was not directly linked with Al-Qaida but instead purposely indirectly linked with them. It is common knowledge in Iraq that Saddam used to fund Al-Qaida training grounds in Iraq and Syria, provide safe havens for sections of Al-Qaida in Iraq and also was a main contributor of compensation funds to families of which a member had been a suicide bomber. Such action is still more or less standard protocol for suicide bomber's families connected to widespread Middle East, albeit obviously not by Saddam now. I have to disagree, in my experience, that government agencies or individuals are part of the Iraq/Al-Qaida connection, as in current terrorist activities.

My regards to you.

>>By Reginald (Wednesday, 14 Sep 2005 19:06)

I would contend that agencies and individuals must be a part of the connection for a few reasons. First, we cannot forget our role in helping Saddam gain power and control. We supplied weapons to both him and his enemy. Second, our intelligence agencies, international banks and bankers, and frankly, our past few executive leaders, all have some degree of connection to Al Qaida (though not all are intent on helping Al Qaida.) For instance, it is a documented fact that we also supplied Bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians over the Afghanistan territory. Was the long term intent to have happen was has happened? Probably not. Still, like Saddam, our intent was one thing and the results another. Not to argue this point to death, but it is dangerous to think that the connections weren't and are not real. Even harder to prove, though, is what you mentioned. The current terrorist activity is most likely funded and supported by groups outside of the US (both our public and private sector). And not necessarily because it would be wrong to support, but because it would be risky. That is the mentality that I believe underlies who does what with terrorists.

>>By Hume Ungus (Wednesday, 14 Sep 2005 22:25)

I totally agree that it is fact that Saddam was helped to power by the US and also by some other nation parties to a lesser extent. Also that Osama Bin Laden was aided in the past by the same parties in the Afghanistan/Soviet conflict. Such things can not be up for dispute as they actually happened. Nobody can predict with accuracy what a person/s will be like and do in the future. With hindsight, whether the US etc would have aided Saddam or Bin Laden if they had known how these people would have changed in the future and adopted their current persona I guess will always be up for discussion with various people. It is accurate to say in these cases, the US etc are in some way connected to Al-Qaida terrorism etc but not connected in the way that most people understand the word "connected". If I had a car to sell and then you bought it off me, if the following year you decided to run down and kill many people - would some of the blame be with me for selling you the car in the first instance ? If I knew the buyer would do something like this then yes, if not then there is no blame. I guess much of it comes down to whether their is "intent" or not. In my view regarding the US, I do not think there was.

>>By Reginald (Friday, 16 Sep 2005 15:08)

Ah but a car is built for transport whereas the kind of weapons the U.S sold to Iraq in the eighties/nineties (and this is also a documented fact) are built for destruction. To me it seems obvious that the intent of the U.S, sadly, was to make money for themselves and they didn't think very much about the consequences. But that's not fact, it's up for debate.
Regarding your original argument Reginald, you're right that Michael Moore probably doesn't have the direct experience to qualify his statements and arguments, but indirect experience (research) shouldn't be overlooked. I've read two of his books now and they both had long, in-depth, thorough 'sources' chapters at the end. And that's what I meant in my first post on this board: Moore's books are his opinions, bolstered by facts which, unless you think there's a huge conspiracy to record things differently from how they actually happened (eg Bush's previous deals and connections with the Saudi royal family and the Bin Laden family), we can only assume are true. And what does George Bush have? Speeches which always seem very vague and have far more emphasis on morals and emotions and abstract nouns like 'freedom' than on facts.
That's why I am inclined to support what Moore says, despite the fact that he probably hasn't been to Iraq and spoken to people there like you seem to have.

>>By Flagg (Friday, 16 Sep 2005 17:24)

I agree that there is an important difference between the car and the weapons, though it doesn't follow that the U.S. intent was in fact to fund terrorist networks as they are today. Still, the geopolitical strategy was one of two things...Either it was shortsighted and considered only in the immediate sense, or it was intended in the long run to help develop sophisticated networks that we now call terrorist networks. Neither case is acceptable if peace is the underlying goal. As tho old cliche suggests, history repeats itself and our studies ought to help us avoid the mistakes when they come back around.

I don't really feel one way or another about Moore as regards his opinions. My feelings are wrapped up in how they play out in the battle of ideas. Again, it comes down to delivery and a style of framing arguments. Though he uses facts, I find that his logic tends to have very long legs, leaping distances that should be covered more carefully. He opens up too much room for attack, especially on his character. His character, which has been strategically defined by his opponents, is perceived to represent the liberal minded people. Being defined is dangerous not necessarily because the truth hurts, but because it can effectively block out the truth when it is needed most. Like it or not, the democrats need to distance themselves from his name while reinforcing some of the ideas he proports.

>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 16 Sep 2005 22:40)

I haven't had time to read the thoughtful responses on the Irqaui situation, but I want to comment of Micahel Moore as a "great" writer.

He is not a great writer. He's a political reporter and he does that well. He knows how to put together compelling arguements onthe page and on film, but I am not sure he could write outside that position. In fact, I would say without his political passions, he might be not ever on our radar screens. To call it literature is a stretch.

>>By Al C (Saturday, 17 Sep 2005 13:11)

Thanks Flagg for your post and to you to Hume Ungus, AI C.

I understand the difference between the car analogy and that weopons were meant for destruction - whereas the car is for transport. It's a good point to clarify and my use of it was to purely point out that the principle was the same in general, in my view. I also understand the importance of using facts and have no doubt such usage used by Moore. However experience dictates that many elements use facts, ie media, TV, films etc for safeguard but such usage is not the issue - it's how the facts are used. It's very common for facts to be used to back an arguement, statement etc but one has to only omit a single word such "not" or "yes", for example, for the entire story to be taken out of context. Most journalists and other media parties would indeed tell you that this is a common practice to enhance or even sensationalize a story which is the kind that people want to read or hear as it sells. I'm not saying at all that this happens all the time but it does happen with frequency. Regards to other views concerning the US, I find your "thoughtful" responses quite enlightening and a learning experience. It's good to read rational and thoughtful views, no matter what they are. For this I thank you.

>>By Reginald (Saturday, 17 Sep 2005 15:43)

I agree, you don't often get this kind of discussion on Flork.

I know, the media often does twist facts, I'm always noticing film/game adverts where it says '...a masterpiece' but what the magazine said was 'this should have been a masterpiece'.
But given how passionate Moore is about the things he writes about, I think it's somewhat cynical to be suspiscious of him. Also, in an advert or a politician's speech a fact can easily be stated and then that's it, but in a book there's an appendix of sources, so it's probably alot harder to distort the facts.
But I agree with Hume Ungus, he does make big generalisations.
Oh and no he's not really a writer, but I'm certainly glad there's a message board for him. Just look at the results :)

>>By Flagg (Sunday, 18 Sep 2005 21:56)

The discussion board is currently closed.