Reply #30: he neglects to mention . . . . [View All]

[Cookie wookie]

WT, you've brought up some interesting points in this post. The film, though, was intended to show what has not been seen or discussed in the mainstream corporate media. For instance, the call by Bush's cousin on Fox. I'd wager many people didn't know that. And the scenes of Iraqi life juxtaposed to the hyperbolic war build up by the media: did any of the media show scenes of this kind during their cheerleading for Shock and Awe? No. We saw nothing of the sort. We were all told, as a matter of fact it was hammered home 24/7 that Saddam was evil. What the people of this nation needed to see was balance, and Moore's film showed us another side. Many of the people who would be blown to bits by Shock and Awe were innocent civilians and had the same human face and day to day lives that we have.

That Saddam was a ruthless and evil dictator is undisputed. However, many people around the world think the same of our current leaders in the US. Certainly we need as a nation to at least think about the consequences of our actions, and how if the same thing was done in reverse, what that would mean to us! How the Iraqi mother and the US mother were the same, the only difference being geography. The Iraqi mother wasn't the enemy, after all.

But back to what you said, "I think a more balanced look ....would have increased it credibility." The film was intended to show the public a whole different viewpoint that many may never have considered or seen before because their thinking and understanding is dominated by the right wing corporate media in America, which is as controlled and biased and propagandistic as anything in the former Soviet Union, China, or Hitler's Germany ever was.