Michael Moore asserts
following in his political film Fahrenheit 9/11:Con #1. Bush favors Bin Laden family over American interests. Regarding Bin Laden family leaving country, we as Americans don't punish people for crimes they didn't commit. Releasing them was civil answer. Imagine if your cousin blew up a building, would you want to go to jail for it? And what do you think terrorists would have done to our families? Getting them out of country stemmed a potential lynching, which would have made America look as bad as our enemies. It was right thing to do.
Con #2. Halliburton and other war corporations are self-serving enemies of America, conspiring with President for profit and privileges. These are public companies he is attacking. They are owned by millions of stockholders. America owns them. Moore criticized executive appointments in Iraq and Afghanistan by "exposing" their prior relationships to President, implying conspiracy. There is no immorality due to those appointed being associates of President, any more than showing preference in choosing his cabinet. Experienced leaders choose people they like--they don't have to field resumes.
Con #3. Our poor are preyed upon by U. S. military recruiters. That poor and middle classes do majority of fighting is not a conspiracy of Bush presidency, but a historical fact of all armies in all nations. Upper class parents hand down a disciplined living structure to their children, while middle and lower class parents provide limited to no living structure, which is reflected in their economic status. Their children need and should seek kind of discipline that military provides, and if they're smart, they carry that rational order into their private lives. Upper class youth already have a plan at that stage, lead self-directed lives much earlier, and therefore avoid risk of being called into action. Moore's footage defeated his own argument in that kids at upscale malls were approached directly and weren't interested; their "influential" parents obviously weren't intervening. (It's a voluntary army, Michael).
Con #4. A negative soldier's viewpoint reveals immorality of war. A wounded soldier has good cause to question why he was there in first place and to believe that war is devastatingly senseless, which is true for aggressor. But American civilization cannot tolerate random acts of violence, which are commonplace in Islamic Fundamentalist regions, to happen here. If necessary, we have to rout them out at source. Twenty year-olds won't have experience to judge policy of a nation, but should be able to comprehend right and wrong at a more basic level. We must honor those who fight for us; we must shelter our fallen, but given blatant horrors of enemy versus American life, he should know he's on right side.
Con #5. The Iraq Dictatorship had nothing to do with war on terrorism. If they're not terrorists, boy do they act like them. Car bombs, abductions, beheadings, anarchy and dictatorship preferred to democracy, suicide missions which murder their own people and offer no peaceful alternative; no, there's no likeness there(!). (If you question our military strategy and countries we've chosen, look at a map). Look at nature of our enemy. Most Americans are civil and constructive--including our troops, while average insurgent is aggressive and foolish as an individual. If you pulled any insurgent aside for an interview you'd see he is a poorly educated, fear-driven control-freak charged with incoherent dogmatic conclusions he never would have come to on his own. They're all psychologically trapped in "submission/domination axis" (as Moral Armor calls it), which amounts to little more than roving criminality, veiled as an endless fight for Allah--which is only a substitution for their tantrum against ever being questioned. Their delusional dedication to an all-powerful force against outsiders who threaten Him ignores a crucial contradiction: If God is all-powerful then He is in no danger, and doesn't need their help.
