Propaganda?


I've seen a lot of assertions, in online reviews and such, that this movie is "propaganda," or more specifically "liberal propaganda," and having just watched this movie I feel like addressing them.

After viewing the movie, the ridiculousness of this assertion is apparent--it seems that screaming "propaganda!" is a stereotyped response to any opinionated film these days.

So, why isn't it propaganda? Well, for one, it makes a serious attempt at answering an important question--why do we (americans) fight? Now, the conclusion is overwhelmingly anti-war, but this certainly doesn't make it any kind of propaganda. The movie does a good job at offering a variety of viewpoints, and makes a point of keeping democrat vs. republican politics out of the picture. It practically proclaims Eisenhower (republican) a prophet and demonizes Truman (democrat), saying he dropped the atomic bombs to show off. And one of the most intelligent and outspoke pundits is republican John McCain.

So I would say this is clearly not "liberal propaganda." Is it anti-war propaganda? I guess you could make an argument that it is, but the issues that it brings up are too complex to be simply dismissed as propaganda, and it does a good job of acknowledging and addressing this complexity and letting viewers think for themselves. It shies away from making sweeping, definitive statements, which is typical of propaganda, and focuses on details.

So anyway, to conclude: this isn't brainless propaganda (a la bowling for columbine). I would recommend it to anyone interested in the dynamics of war and the reasons behind modern warfare. If nothing else, it'll give you some interesting things to think about and discuss.

reply

Agreed. I see a few people on these boards just label it propaganda and leave it at that. It does not go nearly as far as it could on bashing the current administration. Yeah it claims they lied to get us into the Iraq war (which they did, they have all the video clips you need within the movie to prove that) but it does not address how poorly our plans for securing the region were and still are. Cheney is a war profiteer as are several other members of the administration and I do not think it is propaganda to explore how they operate. They have several conservative commentators in the film who refute the harshest issues such as Cheneys contract deals.

I think of propaganda when i watch the FOX News Network, which has conservative commentators reporting opinion and not facts. They offer no rebuttal almost all the time (Oreilys talking points for example). When they do bring on people who argue against their case they are usually limp wristed pansies who could not argue themselves out of a plastic bag, so of course the domineering pundits have their way with them and 90% of the time come out on top, looking better and winning the argument.

reply

It practically proclaims Eisenhower (republican) a prophet and demonizes Truman (democrat), saying he dropped the atomic bombs to show off. And one of the most intelligent and outspoke pundits is republican John McCain.


I'm sorry but the atomic bomb was a necessary procedure for the surrender of Imperial Japan.

During 1945, the leaders of Japan weren't unanimous in surrendering and were adamant in carrying the war despite everything.

I can't say if the actual movie is propagandish or not but I have to say the part with the atomic bomb is somewhat distorted.
At about 16 mins of the movie, a "witness" tells us "The Japanese wanted to surrender during the whole summer". It takes it as a fact.
But it's really arguable (there was no unanimous agreement in the Japanese leaders for a surrender).

Anyway, I might go into details later if some wants me to.

reply

"I'm sorry but the atomic bomb was a necessary procedure for the surrender of Imperial Japan."

The reason so many Americans object to the idea that the dropping of the bombs weren't necassary is becuase they could be war crimes. Of course, war crimes only matter if you're the loser of a war. Otherwise you can just rewrite history, make the civilians believe something so horrific and unjust was necessary so they can feel good about themselves.

http://www.doug-long.com/

reply

So are you saying it was a "war crime"?

reply

Targeting civilians is the definition of a war crime.
However the atomic bomb drop is debatable because it is such a new and unique situation and it did ensure the end of the war. The question is whether it was morally worth it, I'm undecided and I don't think its a good idea for anyone to decide.

reply

The rules of war are designed to lessen the impact upon the non-fighting population, and reduce the horror of war. Actions which do this by definition are not act that break the rules of war.

All laws, rules and regulations have in implict understanding that they are not perfect and even if something is explicitly listed as illegal, if circumstances demand that be broken, they they legally can be.

There was no legal prohibition against attacking cities, and even if there were, the circumstances would negate that.

Take for instance an endangered species of bear. A law is passed protecting the bear. It is illegal to harrass, harm, or in any way hinder the bear. A person is camping, and a bear of this species attacks, the camper kills the bear. The camper has broken no laws, because circumstance forced the action that would otherwise be illegal.

Had the US bombed cities after the war was over, that would be a war crime.

What the United States did is compell an enemy to surrender, then treated that former enemy as a friend and helped it rebuild and become a powerful nation. That is not a warcrime.

reply

Screw indecision. It was a war crime. If it wasn't that doesn't make it an acceptable or even humane reaction. We are in a very similiar position japan was in at the time. How would you react if New York or LA was nuked? Hell even some Po-dunk town in Idaho. It doesn't matter, nuclear war isn't a weapon of war, its genocide on an entire city of people.

Assuring the deaths of millions of people for the possibility of millions of deaths makes no more sense than killing your best friend because hes yelling at you and kicking things around the house. It doesn't necessarily mean he's going to kill you, thereby obligating you to kill his family and co-workers.

reply

With all due respect, get your facts straight. The two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not kill millions, but roughly 200.000. At the same time, the Japanese had hundreds of thousands of Europeans in concentration camps, used millions of Asians for slave labor (hundreds of thousands died), tens of thousands of Asian and European women were forced to prostitution ("comfort girls") for the glorious Imperial army of Japan. Hell, as early as 1937 the Japanese massacred 300.000 Chinese civilians in China. Stopping that by any means necessary is not just morally justified, it's imperative. The 200.000 Japanese that dies in one (two, really) blows in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved god knows how many American GI's and marines and millions of Asian and European civilians (my father being one of them in the Japanese concentration camp of Tjideng, Indonesia) in Japanese occupied territory.
Not to mention how many Japanese civilians and military personnel would have been sacrificed by the government in Tokyo if it had come to an invasion of mainland Japan. In the battle for Okinawa (a small island south of the mainland, but fanatically defended because it was Japanese territory) roughly 200.000 Japanese died "conventionally", more than half of these civilians. Japan started a war of aggression on all their neighbors, as occupiers they behaved as bad (and in many cases worse) than the Nazi's in Europe. You reap what you sew... The US dropped the bomb, the Japanese surrendered, thereby justifying Truman's decision - end of story.

reply

Hate to tell you this, bubba, but your so called facts on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings don't tell the whole story. Sure, the initial blasts killed 200,000, but hundreds of thousands more died from radiation sickness and cancers related to the fallout. That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of children born deformed a generation later because the radiation from the bombs had affected their parents' genes. You America-right-or-wrong types love to spin this episode of American history by only telling one fifth the story, that is to say the number of casualties related to the A-bomb droppings in World War II actually numbered in the millions, not in the thousands as guys like you typically tell it.

Nevermind that this is all skirting another important issue in regard to American prosecution of the war against Japan: the fire-bombing of nearly every metropolitan area in that country with the full knowledge that Japanese buildings at the time were made primarily of wood and paper (as opposed to the stone and concrete used in Europe). Face facts, tough guy. The US committed war crimes in World War II. Just because Japan did so as well doesn't excuse anything. Didn't your mother ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right? The point is that despite what you may think or try to explain away, this country is full of crap for claiming to be above that sort of thing when it really isn't.

reply

Why is it considered immoral to kill tens of thousands of civilians with nuclear weapons when doing the same with conventioal gravity bombs - both high explosive and incendiary - hardly raises an eyebrow? This is thinking I have never understood. If the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, then so was the systematic annihilation of Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities by Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, as well as the strafing of dazed survivors by American P-38s. Either both or neither are crimes; take your choice.

reply

Uh, no, the reason why Americans "object to the idea that the dropping of the bombs weren't necessary" is because it WAS necessary. Lets not kid ourselves here, what was "horrific and unjust" was the Bataan Death March. What was "horrific and unjust" was the systematic rape and torture of thousands upon thousands of Chinese, Danish and other women by Japanese soldiers in so-called "Comfort Stations". What was "horrific and unjust" was the sick and twisted way the Japanese command sent out their soldiers as kamikazes to dive bomb American ships and installations. What would have been "horrific and unjust" would have been making American boys, who had been dying by the yard during the fight in the Pacific, invade Japan and fight a people who worshiped their Emperor and would have fought to the very, last person.

This revisionist nonsense, is just that, nonsense. It's the same tripe that some drubbed up before we dropped the bombs. They wanted a "demonstration" and were convinced that if we provided one, the Japanese would surrender. They didn't surrender after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, so they hardly would have surrendered if we provided a "demonstration".

America did the right thing in dropping the bombs. It was right then, and that hasn't changed today. In fact, it was the most humane thing to do. An invasion of Japan had already begun (by the Soviets, after the bombing of Hiroshima) which would have resulted in thousands upon thousands dead, and the impending invasion by America would have resulted in countless more. The Japanese had plenty of time to surrender, and they patently refused to do so (despite the revisionist claptrap in this movie). They held in their hands their own fate and reaped the whirlwind.


"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

shc shc--- sorry but your unsubstantiated tripe is contradicted by the facts of history. Read a book before posting again please.

reply

Please let me know if I am wrong, but to my understanding, Imperial Japan would not acquiesce to an unconditional surrender. This refusal prolonged the war because the Allies- quite sensibly- could not allow such an awful regime to remain intact, or its leaders to go untried or unpunished afterward. There may be some truth in what Gore Vidal says about Truman making a display of force for the Soviets, although I am not sure that would have been such bad policy by itself. Vidal is a bitterly anti-American radical who never wastes an opportunity to besmirch the United States. Clearly, dropping the bomb was the right decision to end the war, although I wouldn't have supported dropping it on such large cities and killing so many civilians. The display of destructive power should have been enough to convince without destroying so much innocent life.

reply

Vidal anti American? Are you serious?

Great art must be more than technically superior; it also must capture the emotion of the subject.

reply

shc shc--- sorry but your unsubstantiated tripe is contradicted by the facts of history. Read a book before posting again please.


The debate of the atomic bomb (whether it was a war crime or not) is not a fact of history. Definitely not.
It's a matter of opinion and the "go read a book" is a pretty meaningless argument.

In any case, does John Toland "The Rising Sun: the Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945" count?

No historians would ever definitely say that the atomic bomb is or is not a warcrime. They will argue as to why it is or is not. It's a debate that has been overdebated far too many times and it simply became meaningless now. There is no consensus to it.

In any case, it is of my opinion that it is not a warcrime.
If top Imperial Japanese leaders (which have control of the imperial army and navy) refuses to surrender and plans to continue the war on Japanese mainland, it is therefore not a warcrime.
It is said that it's a warcrime because Hiroito was "prepared to surrender". How could he surrender if he has no actual power to do so? He was an influential power but did not directly command the imperial army. Therefore, the war would have continued to the mainland.

The war faction consisted of, Army Minister General Anami, Army Chief of Staff General Umezu, Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda. They advocated war even AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped, and the Russians attacked. Anami's said "It is far too early to say that the war is lost. That we will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan is certain, and it is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favor, pulling victory out of defeat."

Anyway, please do not say "Go read a book". It's a baseless attack (which basically says that I'm ignorant) and in bland flavour too. A war crime law is indeed a law to prevent needless bloodshed.

reply

Just a remark, everyone has whithin this thread has not used the term "the atomic bomb" in its plural form. Let us not forget that there were 2 such atomic weapons used on the Japanese mainland.

As for the debate as to wheter or not the atomic weapons used are considered a warcrime...I think the focus should be wheter or not such actions "should be" considered a warcrime. In any case, wheter they happen or not, history has shown us that even if such despicable actions are carried out, rarely is the offending nation ever penalized. Let us also not forget that Germany and Japan were not the only nations guilty of "terror bombing". The British and the United States were also guilty of such heinous acts. Does the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo ring a bell? ...and then again, maybe it doesn't...

It is at this point where I would like to quote Sir Winston Churchill:
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

The fact is that everyone intentionally bombed enemy civilian population centers. To say that the US is any less guilty than everybody else is only to be lost in self-gratifying hype of the US' exceptionally righteous contribution to the war.

reply

re: the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, it really was necessary, as it's the only reason a massive invasion of the Japanese mainland never happened. How many people, Japanese & American didn't die in an invasion because of thise? How many occupied Chinese & Koreans weren't killed because the war ended earlier than if an invasion occurred? The answer is many more than were killed by the atom bombs. It is a bit of gruesome math, but that's what happened.

What many people don't realize is that while some in Japan knew they were losing the war @ the time the bombs were dropped, they still very much wanted to continue the war because they wanted to increase their negotiating position at any peace talks by having one last "decicive victory". They wanted to keep territories they'd captured, and/or at least get credit for "kicking out the Western Imperialists out of Asia" so that they could wear a fig leaf to excuse having started the war, among many other things, & wouldn't get those things if enterering into talks from a weaker position.

I really don't want to sit here all day writing a term paper on the subject, so I'll just highly recommend reading the book Downfall by Richard B. Frank. It lays out the context of its use, & pretty much puts all the facts out there, including addressing many of the popular "it was wrong" theories with facts, figures, intercepted diplomatic messages, internal memos & the whole works.

Basically it boiled down to this question: If you could end the war tomorrow by pushing this button, but by doing so, 60,000 people would die, would you do it?

reply

I think Kong's remarks pertain directly to your remarks, and the argument should be centered on whether it SHOULD be a war crime. And the answer is "yes". The ends do NOT justify the means. You could justify ANY atrocity by saying "well, it likely shortened the war and the lessened the OVERALL number of people hurt." It's B.S. Like getting into a barfight and using a soup spoon to take out the guy's eyeball. Twice. "Well, it was necessary to shorten the fight, and the number of people who likely would've been hurt in it." Seems a lot more ridiculous when you put it in an individualized context, doesn't it?

The fact is, there must be principles that the just adhere to, or they are no better than the villains they fight. And if you're going to then debate that the U.S. wasn't in the war to be "just", well then you're missing the historical context, and also the context that wars are typically framed in. And the point here is additionally that even if ONE bomb was "necessary", how then would TWO be necessary? You simply cannot justify it. No, the Truman administration simply wanted to steamroll over a people until there was no will to resist...like adding a rape to a beating. It was not enough to win, we had to complete decimate any resistance, any shred of nationalistic integrity. This was clearly to send a message to others, and to establish a position of dominance beyond reproach. This is the beginning of the USA becoming that feared and fabled "Evil Empire."

reply

Why, then, was the second atomic bomb dropped without pause for surrender? Why was Nagasaki necessary? Aren't soldiers supposed to be ready to sacrifice themselves so that women and children don't need to die in conflict of which they have no part? I don't see how the atomic attacks on Japan were "necessary," it was -rather- convenient because we figured "better them than a few of us." That is inhuman and terrorist.

reply



your views on the atomic bomb being "necessary" is just opinion and not fact. you can't just put out an opinion like that and treat it as fact. history is not an account, it's the favoured account. "facts" are not simply just facts but what the dominant ideology has chosen as THE fact. If you grew up in Japan, it might'nt seem as necessary as you claim.

reply

If we hadn't coerced Japan in to bombing Pearl Harbor, none of this would have happened. We NEEDED to be in the war...for monetary reasons. We needed for Japan to attack us in order to declare war on them and legally enter in to a war with them.
In all reality, we don't give a damn about who gets slaughtered and where...unless we can make a profit from it.
Look at Darfur. Over a million killed/slaughtered and the US has zero interest in helping. Why? They have nothing to offer us. They are a poor country. They have no resources we can use.

So for you to say that dropping the bombs was a necessary procedure is just an uneducated answer on your part. Japan wanted nothing to do with us...until we sided with China and placed an embargo on Japan. Which, by the way, was illegal.

reply

Quote: "If we hadn't coerced Japan in to bombing Pearl Harbor, none of this would have happened. We NEEDED to be in the war...for monetary reasons. We needed for Japan to attack us in order to declare war on them and legally enter in to a war with them."

You are correct, up to a point. We didn't coerce Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor because we wanted to destroy Japan, but rather as an excuse for a "Holy War" against Hitler and Fascism. Germany was our primary target all along, which was why FDR and Churchill gave the war in Europe top prioity. The provoked attack by Japan was merely a way to get Americans to accept a war they otherwise would not have. I will not go into discussing the forces behind this decision, but suffice it to say that to understand this is to understand the real reasons for WWII.



reply

Dropping of the atomic bomb was only necessary in the eyes of the U.S. government. Because Japanese supplies and power were quickly running out, they would have only been able to last a few more months to a year. It's just that we had no way of knowing this so I'd have probably made the same decision if I was in charge.

reply

If you don't think this movie is leftist propaganda, you just weren't paying attention.

Everybody has a right to their opinion - that is one of the things that makes this country great. But the people who put together this documentary do not think this country is great - they think that the USA and our corporations are the root of all evil in the world. They drill it over and over and over and over again, while throwing in a few short comments by some more conservative commentators and government officials to try and show "balance". Please.

If you like Michael Moore and that ilk, you will like this film. If you are a moderate to conservative American that thinks capitalism is a good thing, this movie will get your dander up.

reply

I agree. I just watched this movie. Just because both Republicans and Democrats are showcased doesn't make this movie "balanced." They're all saying the same thing: Congress doesn't care about us, the President doesn't care about us, the government lies, and the Army only recruits desperate people who have no options other than military service. This is just another Michael Moore mimeograph. I'd love to see a documentary that wasn't biased and which didn't contain a series of half truths.

If you have an anti-war, anti-capitalism stance, this movie will validate your existing opinions and suspicions and give you a good source to quote on your blogs and in dinner table conversations. If you're looking for whole truths, a series of facts which presume you are capable of examining them and forming your own opinion, you won't find them here.

reply

Man, it is just so frustrating to see any serious attempt to answer the simple question of why we fight devolve into accusations of Michael Moore-ism and liberal propaganda. I hesitate to even enter this discussion because I know it's pretty much hopeless, but here we go:

No where in the film does it claim America is the root of all evil throughout the world. It's attempting to answer a simple question, why do we, meaning America, intervene in various countries around the world?

To understand that, we have to know the players and their motivations. This means we need to examine the US government, the defense industry, the media, and the American people.

To say this is simply liberal propaganda ignores the fact that Republicans do not have exclusivity on US military interventionism. Before George W Bush was around, Clinton sent the military on plenty of adventures, as does every President.

The film obviously focused on the recent on-going conflict in Iraq, and therefore the decision-makers who took us into this war, but don't let that prevent you from examining the broader question.

And is it wrong to suggest that the collusion of corporations, lobbyists, and government officials has resulted in policies that are not necessarily in America's interests?

Does our government not lie? When LBJ talked about the North-Vietnamese attacking US ships, was he lying, misinformed, or what? Why did the majority of the American people believe Saddam was involved in 9/11? Was that because they drew that conclusion themselves, or did the Bush administration intentionally blur the line between Saddam and Al Qaeda? And why would they do that?

Why does America enter one conflict with talk of Democracy and Freedom, but completely ignore other areas of the world where people are even more grievously oppressed? Why have we supported, or even installed, dictators that have brutally suppressed their people?

The answer is actually pretty simple, everything we do is about our own perceived self-interest, whether economic or strategic. Talk of freedom and Democracy is merely propaganda used to rally the American people or win over the people living in the country we are confronting or "liberating". There are very very few examples of the US acting out of purely altruistic means, especially in the post-WWII era.

That is not to say that any other country in the world is any better, but we need to stop deluding ourselves that decisions are always made with America's best interests in mind, or with altruistic motives, and open our eyes to how the decisions are made and sold.

reply

Well said.

If this movie "gets your dander up," it's probably because the terrible truths contained therein cannot be refuted by anything based in fact. Every American ought to see this movie.

reply

Ok. Before I even reply, I'll say I dislike Michael Moore a lot, and I also enjoyed this movie a lot.

So, now then, your comment is exactly what I was talking about. This isn't "propaganda." It just isn't. Let's look at the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster--

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Now, you are making the claim that this movie is designed with the express intent of injuring the republican government and furthering liberal politics. You claim that "Why We Fight" was made with the specific purpose of damaging the Bush administration. I simply do not think this is true.

I agree with you that the filmmaker in this case has a distinctly anti-war viewpoint. The film makes no attempt to hide this. I also see how this can be construed as a weakness of the film, although I think it does a good job of putting forth some interesting points that deserve further discussion. Labeling it as propaganda is an awfully convenient way to ignore some of the powerful and true statements that it makes.

I think it is completely absurd to refer to it as "liberal propaganda." Just because a film takes a set viewpoint, in this case one that is opposed to war, does not mean that it is propagandist.

reply

I've seen Michael Moore's film and I think his views were definitely propoganda oriented.

I thought after watching this film though, that this was a fair and objective look at the Iraqi war and the situations surrounding it.

The fact that many people still believe it to be propaganda, I find to be rather disturbing. Why? Because i'm saying to myself, here is the truth staring us right in the face and there are those that continue to deny it. I now wonder if the American people will ever have the capacity to see beyond what they're spoon fed.

reply

There is no way this film is propaganda. There is probably more propaganda going on at Fox News than with this film.

reply

LOL - I love it. It's just not OK to have a non-leftist opinion anymore, is it?

How about a little test:

1. Do you believe that US Defense Contractors lie, cheat, and pressure the US Government into needless wars?

2. Do you belive that US Defense Contractors and most of the US Government (except for the extreme left) work together to force us into wars that we should not be involved in just so a bunch of "capitalists" can make a buck?

3. Do you believe that the CIA, FBI, and a "shadow government" of "Neo-Cons" are working together with US Corporations to take over the world?

4. Do you believe that Japan was trying to make a serious attempt to surrender in 1945 before we dropped the atomic bomb on them? Or, to go one step futher, that we only dropped the atom bomb on Japan to scare the USSR?

5. Do you believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 was a "war crime".

If you answered yes to the above questions, you have bought into the radical left view of the world. And you will consider this movie to be just great.

I believe that most American corporations are out to make money, not to take over the world, or hurt common people here or around the world.

Does it ever occur to all of you leftists out there that it is in the interest of the "evil corporations" to have a free and prosperous base of customers?

Communism is responsible for the death of about 100 MILLION people in the 20th Century, but many of you leftists lament the downfall of the USSR, and talk of the USA as if we have been the main cause of mass death and destruction around the world.

Luckily for us all, while you might be able to make a lot of noise on the Internet and the street corner, you generally don't win national elections in the USA. Care to explain why the last liberal President to be elected in the USA was LBJ? Oh, I know, it's because the American people are stupid, right?

reply

Nobody's talking about communism. It's asinine to brand anyone who doesn't support American corporations wholeheartedly as a communist, just as it would be to brand anyone who doesn't support Christianity wholeheartedly as a Satanist. Even then, there are still arguments over values and implementation vs ideals, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand.


The points in the movie never stated that US Defense contractors cause wars. They start by making the point that the defense industry requires military conflict and expenditures to be prospersous, and that they have influences on the government (just like automotive industry or labor unions) through lobbyists, campaign distributions, and employment. Is it so hard to believe that the defense industry acts any differently from other industries? The movie just goes a step further and says that the influences of the defense industry (keeping in mind that the defense industry out of necessity works closely with the governemnt) are much large enough to have affected and distorted the government more drastically than people realize. Over time, this is carried out to the point where some governmental processes have suffered a fair amount of genetic drift due to their isolation from the public. It's not making any claims that are unsubstantiated, although some like the atomic bomb are debatable.

And like others on this board have said, the movie makes it clear that it doesn't favor one part of the political spectrum over the other; Johnson was criticized, Bush was criticized, Eisenhower was praised.

reply

I agree with some of what you say, and if this movie would have ended after the first 45 minutes or so, I would have agreed more. The 2nd half of this movie was just another tirade against the Iraq war, NeoCons, Corporations, and Bush.

My comments on communism were due to a prior poster here than the movie - read the thread....

reply

Actually, bobboren, extreme leftist opinions are the very thing that both political parties in the U.S. want to suppress with labels like terrorists or nutcases because conservatives never challenge the authority of government and leftists raise too many questions for even the democratic politicians to get away with just anything. Most conspiracy theories, like fluoridated water to deliberately sicken citizens, are usually harboured by the paranoid and the false people out there. But people in a democratic society should always question their governments leadership and policy, even in times of peace. 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the Gulf of Tonkin, are just a few instances where Americans and people world wide, should learn the truth of what really happened because there is so much doubt over the government's explanation of what really happened. If the power of the state hides behind national security too much than the likely hood of a crime, a lie, or a dirty payoff, either foreign or domestic, is very high. The bombing of Japan would be considered a war crime these days because the real enemy that needed to be squashed was Imperialism, citizens are mostly the victims of their Imperial masters, so killing them in such a way is very dishonourable and nearly genocidal. I doubt the A bomb drop was a war crime back then because total war was the way of things and only the losers of war faced trial for war crimes. And by the way, Clinton and Carter were Liberal presidents after LBJ, and Al Gore was elected by the American majority but was illegaly usurped by ol' Dubya and his daddie's political cronies when they pulled a Kansas City shuffle at the last minute in Florida, allowing FOX network to declare Bush the fake winner.
In answering your questions:
1. No, they just wave money under the noses of the right leaders.
2. Yes, and so do alot of people.
3. No, but I suspect that it may come to that if the ruling class obtains enough power that controlling the world is the only logical step up for an already clearly meglomaniacal elite.
4.Imperialists, no, but there are a hell of alot of witness accounts of civilians that did wish their government to surrender and that is fundamentally why Imperialism is a failure to humanity. I mean think, man, do you really believe that defenseless people would refuse surrender knowing the A bomb threat was made. And you bet your ass to Truman using it for his purpose to scare Stalin and the Soviets if only a little, the arms race had officially begun by then.
5.Yes, it was overkill and disgusting and other Empires in history have gotten away with that kind of thing before, claiming it was necessary to protect the state.

reply

I have considered myself in the middle for many years. These days though if I don't trust my government (Canadian) which I don't does that make me a leftist... but I don't trust any government, left or right and think they are all looking for thier own self intrest. Politicians = Liars I will firmly believe this until someone proves me otherwise from any party in any country.

reply

Couldn't have said it better myself. As soon as you question a government the conditioned response by that government's followers is to label you a leftist, communist, terrorist, or conspiracy theorist. Have you seen Bush's approval ratings? It's not just liberals that hate this man and his administration, the majority of the world are a bunch of terrorists if you are a US ignoramus. Check out Noam Chomsky's "Failed States", which illustrates how the US is becoming another fascist super-power not unlike Germany and Russia. Really the only thing that has kept America from being labeled as it really should be for its conduct over the past 60 years is the continual lie that they embody democracy and freedom, when really they, meaning the minority that is the ruling class, embody "access of key markets, resources, and economies through force if necessary" .Bill Clinton.

reply

Hey, everybody has a right to their opinion - I respect yours and expect you to respect mine.

I've complained about our government many times over many issues. Such it is in human societies everywhere.

I do have a couple issues with your post. Do you really think that Bill Clinton was a liberal during his administration? (I'm talking about what he DID, not what he SAYS now) - and by the way, I liked Clinton, and considered him a very good MODERATE. If you disagree, please list all of the liberal programs he put into place.

You can do that with LBJ - but not with Clinton, or Carter for that matter.

Jimmy Carter was no liberal when he is in office. He was also a moderate, not a good moderate, but there it is.

And stop with the "stole the election" crap. Go back to civics class and study the Electoral college. I'm all for getting rid of it - but you can't only turn it off when it hurts you. JFK got in the same way that Bush did in 1960 - and there was real voter fraud in that election on the Democratic side.

As for Japan and the atom bomb - your logic is what allows the likes of Hitler and Tojo to exist. The people of Japan had a responsibility to stop things their government was doing, like the Rape of Nanking. They didn't do it. WW II and it's outcome was the consequences. Period. Same thing goes for Nazi Germany. And the same thing would go for the US as well, IF we were like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. But we aren't - we are a free society. Want proof? Compare immigration rates into Japan and German in the 1920s-30s-40s with that of the USA. I'll just betcha we had a whole lot more people wanting to come to the USA. How do you explain that?

reply

Your right, the people of Japan did have a responsibility. So what are you prepared to do to stop your government from doing things like state sponsored terrorism, funding Saddam one day and then using him as an excuse for invading Iraq the next. The US WAS the nation that everyone wanted to live in for its democracy and liberty. But under the Bush administration, like many others, the US is starting to look less about liberty and more about totalitarianism. Is the concept really that impossible for you? It has happened before and the people are always so sorry afterwards, after the genocide and war, but they were "just following orders". If America is so free and so loved by immigrants then why do they need excessive nuclear arms, and the self-reserved right to nuke non-nuclear states? Why do they find themselves treated as an Imperial occupation when they are so convinced that they are liberators? If your looking for facts about their constant occupations I already mentioned Noam Chomsky. His book cites hundreds of sources both international and domestic. The UN and most of the free world as well as many un-free nations have a genuine fear and hatred of US military and politics. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent civilian in Iraq, would you just allow some country to bomb your home, kill your family, and force society into a neverending state of martial law? You would be pissed, you would want revenge, you would resort to violence or else you would be a spineless worm. But I guess when America does these things it's not terrorism, right? I know that if the terrorists in the Middle East make it over here I won't be greeting them as liberators, I won't let them kill my family. What are you prepared to do when the day comes that the government's actions have led to your possible demise. Will you fight for them or against them? Will you be a Nazi or an American?

reply

Please explain to all of us out here, with facts and data, how the US is now a "totalitarian" state. If what you are saying were true, you would not be able to make comments like the above without getting thrown in jail.

And as for Noam, I've listened to him many times, and it always makes me mad. This nutcase would have us be like the USSR if he had his way. He's as free as anybody to say whatever he wants here - but guess what? If he were in control, I wouldn't be. Thats the dirty little secret of the far left. The only difference between Chomsky and Lenin is that Chomsky doesn't have an army to enforce his will.

In order to be called "imperialist", you have to be taking ownership of countries and taking their wealth in tribute, controlling the politics, and so on. The last empire we had on this earth was the USSR. Compare how they treated Eastern europe to how we treated western europe. Or compare how they treated Eastern europe to how we are acting in Afganistan and Iraq. If you think we are doing similar things, fine. I'll not waste anymore time talking to you. There are lots of smart folks out there....

reply

Another great comparison is the two Korea's. If pacifism had prevailed, then all of Korea would now be a Stalinist nightmare, not just a third of it. The other two thirds of the peninsula's population lives in relative freedom and prosperity. How could the terrible sacrifice not have been necessary and noble? It just puts the lie to Chomsky and his ilk- or perhaps I should say, his cult following.

reply

America is on its way to totalitarianism, the facts and data are found in many places in addition to the writings of Noam Chomsky. I am not explaining it to everyone here, just you bobboren, because most of the people on this post seem to agree with my sentiments. And your right about jail time, but it is very likely that I would be slandered and libeled against to begin with in present day US if I had a large audience like say... Noam Chomsky.
And you say Chomsky is a nutcase and a Soviet? That must be a classic case of government programming if I've ever heard one. Chomsky is a well known scholar with no connections to the USSR. He is, if you would just open your mind, writing about US policy and its effects on the world. I don't know if he even votes left but he does equally address all administrations in his work and the atrocities they are responsible for. His position is more from the UN perpective, since they are also accusing US governments of breaking international law. Chomsky is not just pulling facts from his ass, the UN and most of the rest of the world have spoken up with their objections and data as well. Is calling Chomsky a commie that is vying for world domination (and considering he is in the winter years of his life he has a lot of work to do, what with amassing an army and all) the best you can do? It is the words of the UN that describes US military actions as Imperialist. You can't spread democracy with a gun, it takes years of diplomacy which the US government has proven that they have other priorities.

reply

<<And you say Chomsky is a nutcase and a Soviet? That must be a classic case of government programming if I've ever heard one. >>

I didn't say that Chomsky was a Soviet - I said that he agrees with their form of government and their society. And I stand by that. This nut is on C-Span fairly often - and I LISTEN to what he says. My filter is that I disagree with him on socialism. You probably have a filter that disagrees with capitalism. Thats fine - like I said before we both have a right to our opinions.

<<America is on its way to totalitarianism, the facts and data are found in many places in addition to the writings of Noam Chomsky. I am not explaining it to everyone here, just you bobboren, because most of the people on this post seem to agree with my sentiments.>>

That wasn't an answer, by the way. Where are these "facts and data" that back up what you are saying? Listen to what you are saying. Would you consider what Rush Limbaugh says about abortion "facts and data". I wouldn't - and Noam is no better than Rush - just on opposite sides of the fence.

reply

Totalitarianism under Bush? You've got to be kidding. Characteristics of "totalitarianism" per Yahoo:

[Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the two most important are: the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, and a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory. The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems. Dissent is systematically suppressed and people terrorized by a secret police. Autocracies through the ages have attempted to exercise control over the lives of their subjects, by whatever means were available to them, including the use of secret police and military force.]

Also, you must know that "terrorist" acts by definition target innocent civilians, which the U. S. does not do (in Iraq.) Sadly, many innocents die but the U. S. does not target them.



reply

That should not have to be explained - but thanks for doing it. Theres a need on this thread.

reply

Also, you must know that "terrorist" acts by definition target innocent civilians, which the U. S. does not do (in Iraq.) Sadly, many innocents die but the U. S. does not target them.

what about funding and training terrorist groups that target and have targeted innocent civilians? Are you going to deny it happened- indeed, it is still happening.

reply

Yes, absolutely. The Bush Doctrine is an ideology which crosses over into nearly all facets of life, and it is compulsory. If you don't agree, you're demonized. Bush did get Congress to give him "extraordinary powers" during the Iraq war, which he then attempted to use in MANY other ways both outside AND inside the US. He had to go to court to defend this numerous times, and they argued that the Executive branch had these powers because they were acting against the 'war on terror'. This was, of course defeated in court as not a formal war, and not excuse to exercise numerous powers. This ranges from flagging of library rentals to taping of private cell conversations to warrantless search and siezure to imprisonment with being charged or tried, and on and on. Dissent is absolutely systematically suppressed. One prime example is through media manipulation and demonization, for instance Fox News and their various commentators, including the owner, who have been tied up economically and through careers with both Bush administartions. Cheney did indeed have a secret military police squad, and the US did indeed target areas that would knowingly result in and abundance of civilian casualties.

There you go, an explanation of why the Bush administration was not far removed from totalitarianism, and why the US is itself a terrorist-sponsored state. Oh, that and the fact that many times in the past, we have funded, trained, and fought alongside actual terrorist, many of which are our enemies today, such as Ho Chi Minh, Pinochette, Bin Laden, Hussein, and many more. So yes, apparently an explanation IS needed "sclvr", you tool.

reply

My answers:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. No to both.

5. Yes, but only because they were dropped on large civilian populations. I think
even Robert McNamara would agree.

So, where does this put me? Am I a leftist? I sure hope not.

I have heard some say that Richard Nixon was actually the last liberal US president. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency, opening China to trade, appointing Harry Blackmun to the Supreme Court, among other things.

reply

To all the people who opposed this movie will you answer one question? It's a simple question.



This is all I wish to ask:


Why did we go invade Iraq and declare war upon them?


reply

1) Yes, some do. Many people who are in an industry that involves sales lie, cheat, and pressure people. To think that this never happens would be naive.

2) No, I wouldnt go that far. Certainly there is some influence by the MIC, and in terms of keeping the best interests of the U.S. even in terms of finances or resources. These are only considerations. I think the U.S. waged conflicts are primarily fought as a result of a certain ideology.

3) No, I dont think these groups are working together to take over the world. I think the Neo-Cons have managed to change a long-standing foreign policy that did not include pre-emption. I dont believe in a shadow government per se but I think there are certain powerful people that have influence that are not in the public eye. Of course the CIA and FBI are supportive of the government. There is definately a vision to transform the ME in a proactive militaristic way. This is no secret with "The War On Terror" and "The Axis Of Evil".

4) I dont have all the facts so I cant comment.

5) I dont know if it was a "war crime" because I dont know all the details but from what I understand, I think the second bomb was excessive and could have been avoided.

How did I do on your test Bob? Am I a leftwinger? Just curious.

reply

Bobboren- Your logic is flawed. Aside from that, your condescending tone is enough to void your argument.

"I believe that most American corporations are out to make money, not to take over the world, or hurt common people here or around the world."

"Does it ever occur to all of you leftists out there that it is in the interest of the 'evil corporations' to have a free and prosperous base of customers?"

You seem to have missed the basics of the argument. First of all, the only corporations and contracts in question are that which involve the production of military weapons. The idea that contracts for military weapons produced solely for the USA military involve a "free and prosperous base of customers" is absolutely laughable. The only customer is the government.

Secondly, the film isn't talking about the intent of corporations, but the intent of the government. I have no idea where you could possibly have understood the point of the movie to be that "American corporations are out to take over the world."

The only conclusion I can make is that you're a *beep* idiot.

reply

<<The only conclusion I can make is that you're a *beep* idiot. >>

Funny you should make that comment, after this one:

<<Bobboren- Your logic is flawed. Aside from that, your condescending tone is enough to void your argument.>>

And then there is this:

<<Secondly, the film isn't talking about the intent of corporations, but the intent of the government. I have no idea where you could possibly have understood the point of the movie to be that "American corporations are out to take over the world." >>

Use your head. The "Military-Industrial Complex" consists of one part "Military" (Government), and one part "Industry" - (private corporations). DON'T YOU GET IT?

One other thing you need to understand about these message boards - often I'm replying to other members - some of whom believe that the "evil corporations" are the root of all evil in the world - and that it is the job of government to restrict the actions of corporations (which is, of course, true to an extent). The film flirts with this idea, but does not come right out and say it. Members of this board have - and I have every right to respond to that with my own opinions.

reply

Why is it that those who brand this movie as leftist propaganda never have anything intelligent to say? Seriously. It's ridiculously obvious that these people do not think for themselves. They probably just copy and paste their whole "This is propaganda" rant on every documentary that does not put American foreign policies in a favorable light.

You people need to put down your flags because it's seriously covering your eyes. For once trying thinking as a citizen of Earth and not just as a citizen of the United States. Step outside of your patriotic bubble and look at the actions of your government as a neutral observer. This documentary isn't meant to convince you of one thing or another. It simply shows you 30% (maybe less) of the military conflicts the US has been in since post WWII. Are you that idiotic to think these are respectable actions of a great nation? That all of these conflicts are justified (and serving American interests isn't complete justification). Your negligence is how evil people get away with evil things. How else do you think governments of a democratic nation get away with heinous actions? Their citizens are too busy being "patriotic" while neglecting their democratic duty in keeping their representatives honest. It's reasons why true patriots like Daniel Ellsberg gets no recognition, even though he revealed what little regard the government had for it's own people and solders. This is America people.

Governments not giving a *beep* about it's citizens or soldiers is nothing new so when you hear about it on a documentary don't close your eyes, plug your ears and scream "leftist propaganda".

reply

I couldn't agree more. I'm especially wondering how people can argue that this is liberal propaganda when the film has such a high opinion of (Republican) Eisenhower.

I just want my kids back!

reply


More like Leftist agitprop than just simple propaganda......unwatchable

reply

Lots of people talking about Michale Moore like he made this film, what a bunch of mindwashed idiot conservatives.

He is not anti consumerism, he is simply against the awful actions certain corporations carry out againt their own workers. You have to admit, consumerism and corporations are not perfect, and Moore makes though provoking, to the point documentaries about the flaws in the system.

Anyone against Michale Moore is a brainless automotan. Go and actually see his movies before you post. If you have seen them all and think he is some kind of propaganda czar, you are beyond redemption.

reply

If Mooreon was at least truthful and up front in what is is doing, I'd cut him a little more slack - but this guy bends facts, does creative "editing" of interviews, and basically lies like a rug about just about every subject he's ever tackled (including GM). And then he denies that he does this. CNN called his bluff (and they are by no means "conservative". They kind of made up - but CNN would not back down on most of what they were saying about his latest hit job (Sicko).

Some people are too stupid to see through his nonsense, and buy it hook line and sinker (like harkness78). Other's do see through it - and get attacked when they point it out. Hmmmmmmmmm........

reply

Most people who label this film and others like it as propaganda are in denial and refuse to do the research. We have been told how great America is and how our military has been fighting for our freedoms. The reality is exposed by this film that every war after the revolution were fought for monetary reasons and gain of the elites. The war of 1812 could be an exception, however, that war was fought over several other things other than trade restrictions, which came to be the main reason. As a result of this the Americans declared war on Britain. I recently read an article on the War of 1812. The article's content is supported by many other writings.Our patriotism has been exploited by the world's elites! This should in no way desecrate the service of the men who fought.

I urge people to read the writings of Smedley Butler's, the highest decorated Marine,War is a Racket!

Here is the opening of that article and a wikipedia entry follows;

The Hard Truth About the War of 1812

With the 200 year anniversary of the War of 1812 only 6 years off, it is time for America to face up to its shame. We have been denying it for years, even Nicholas Plagman in his article War of 1812: A Humorous Look at US History (Part 5): Return of the Brits, fails to make mention of the fact. And that fact is that we, the almighty and all powerful United States of America, lost a war to Canada.

For those of us living in the 21st century, it is hard to see the draw that the early Americans had towards Canada. We see it for what it is: a bleak, depressing, horrible frozen wasteland, completely unsuitable for life. Imagine Buffalo times infinity.

But in those early years of our nation, Canada was seen as a land of milk, honey and beaver pelts. And if there was one thing Americans needed, it was more land. And while the west was just barely beginning to be settled, the United States was looking for land wherever they could get it.

Our first attempts to invade Canada came during the American Revolution, during the battle that you never learned about in history class, the Battle of Quebec. A rather poor attempt by the Revolutionaries to take Quebec, it has been quietly forgotten in most American history texts. One would have thought we would have learned our lesson, but Americans have never been particularly strong in history.


From Wikipedia;

The War of 1812 was a military conflict fought between the forces of the United States of America and those of the British Empire.[nb 2] The Americans declared war in 1812 for a number of reasons, including trade restrictions, impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, and the humiliation of American honor. Until 1814, the British Empire adopted a defensive strategy, repelling multiple American invasions of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. However, the Americans won control of Lake Erie in 1813, seized parts of western Ontario, and destroyed the power of Britain's Indian allies both in Canada and in the Southwest. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, the British adopted a more aggressive strategy, sending in large combat armies. British victory at the Battle of Bladensburg in August 1814 allowed the British to capture and burn Washington, D.C. American victories in September 1814 and January 1815 repulsed British invasions of New York and New Orleans.

reply

> It practically proclaims Eisenhower (republican) a prophet and demonizes Truman (democrat), saying he dropped the atomic bombs to show off.

If you believe the latter part about Truman then you are an ignorant twit with no valid opinion from the get-go.

And if this film states that, then, yes, it is anti-American propaganda at best.

The true fact of the dropping of The Bomb on Japan is that, more likely than not, it has led to the survival of mankind. By creating graphic images of what this weapon was fully capable of in its nascent form -- much less the more powerful form it became within less than a decade -- it scared the bejezus out of The Rich And Powerful who do, in many cases, make the decision to Go To War -- the ones on both sides.

In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, Harlan Ellison noted that the atomic bomb has a unique history -- other than that single solitary usage @ Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it, unlike any other weapon in the history of mankind, has not been used again in war for (then) fifty (now sixty-five) years. Because, as a simple fact, for the first time since kings stopped leading their armies into battle, the Decision to Go To War threatened those who made that decision just as thoroughly as those who prosecuted the war. So the Rich and Powerful had as much, or even more, to lose than the common man.

Absent these very grave images of the power of this weapon, a foolish aristocracy on BOTH sides (and yes, even America has one) might easily have believed in the notion of a winnable atomic war.

Instead, no one did, with the result of zero uses of the weapon for (now) more than sixty-five years, and little chance of such usage outside the hands of rogue terrorists and/or insane nations like those driven by fanatical Islam.

The fact is that the use of the weapon saved lives -- Directly, in that both Japanese and American lives, millions of them, lost to either a blockade or an invasion were averted -- and also led to a Free Japan, rather than a segmented East/West one like besmirched Europe for forty years, as Russian assistance wasn't needed to force the surrender... And indirectly, for the reasons described above.

The reasons for using the weapon were many and widespread in their basis. The reasons for not doing so were few and based far more in modern notions of "Can't We All Just Live Together?"

reply

i think CorumJI (and Harlan Ellison) are exactly right. thats what the rand corporation and game theory were all about. thats why rogue terrorists are so scary, because everyone (except fantical terrorists), including the elite, see the insanity inherent in nuclear weapons, and it was the demonstration of their horrific destructive powers that instilled that. thanks, truman. sorry, japan. i say that with no humor or sarcasm whatsoever.

reply