Michael Moore asserts the following in his political film Fahrenheit 9/11:
Con #1. Bush favors the Bin Laden family over American interests. Regarding the Bin Laden family leaving the country, we as Americans don't punish people for crimes they didn't commit. Releasing them was the civil answer. Imagine if your cousin blew up a building, would you want to go to jail for it? And what do you think the terrorists would have done to our families? Getting them out of the country stemmed a potential lynching, which would have made America look as bad as our enemies. It was the right thing to do.
Con #2. Halliburton and other war corporations are self-serving enemies of America, conspiring with the 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 the President, implying conspiracy. There is no immorality due to those appointed being associates of the 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 the poor and the middle classes do the majority of the fighting is not a conspiracy of the 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 the middle and lower class parents provide limited to no living structure, which is reflected in their economic status. Their children need and should seek the kind of discipline that the 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 the risk of being called into action. Moore's footage defeated his own argument in that the kids at the 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 the immorality of the war. A wounded soldier has good cause to question why he was there in the first place and to believe that war is devastatingly senseless, which is true for the aggressor. But American civilization cannot tolerate the random acts of violence, which are commonplace in Islamic Fundamentalist regions, to happen here. If necessary, we have to rout them out at the source. Twenty year-olds won't have the experience to judge the 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 the blatant horrors of the enemy versus American life, he should know he's on the right side.
Con #5. The Iraq Dictatorship had nothing to do with the 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 the countries we've chosen, look at a map).
Look at the nature of our enemy. Most Americans are civil and constructive--including our troops, while the 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 the "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 the 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.
Con #6. American forces are running amok, targeting innocent civilians. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu says to attack the heart of your enemy. Who has Moore attacked? Whose heart is he after? Did he show you the crippled and burned Americans still struggling to survive after September 11th? No, he showed you Iraqi casualties. All sides have casualties in war, and a movie maker will favor those of like ideology. Whose side are you on Michael? How many heads have we cut off? Such barbarism only strengthens our resolve to win.
Near the end, Moore meekly agrees that "America is a great country." Still, you can't help but get a strong anti-American feeling from the film. It's him telling the rest of us that our world is a sham, our freedom is a lie, and that this dilemma is our own fault. Of course, he fails to mention that we wiped out two dictatorships with a wartime loss amounting to only one-third the casualties they caused us in New York, and we are now paving the way for their most productive citizens to thrive in a civil world community. The aggregate result will be a release of the pent up energy of the people--an Iraqi industrial revolution and a world benefit--new pipelines, skyscrapers and personal freedoms.
It's irresponsible to watch such a movie and draw conclusions based solely on its contents. It is not honest to isolate three aspects of an issue when there are six to consider. Shame on you, Mr. Moore! Summation and Solution. The Koran states that anyone who is not Muslim is the enemy, to be chopped, hacked and slaughtered, plain and simple. There is no room for misinterpretation, and no constructive reasoning with such insanity. Allegiance to life must come before religious or political ideas, and such ideas must be based on the furtherance of the biological life of a man; otherwise, they are wrong.
To the oppressed citizens of the world I say, as a free country, America offers a simple institutional structure--no dogmatic requirements; we're all free to believe what we want--but if you limit or harm others, you're freedom will be taken in turn. The old days are gone--the monarchies, the dictatorships, the communal nightmares--with room only for civility between men into the future. All must respect the human institutions whose fundamental guideline is the preservation of individual life, by outlawing the initiation of force against others. So conform, and live.
It is the obligation of philosophy to provide a constructive course of action in the individual, social, artistic and institutional realms--the full range of human action. Moral Armor does just that, providing the first fully-integrated non-sectarian moral code, and it is based on the nature of Man. No other style of moral code has even a chance to win over there.
The campaign in Iraq was not a new development. Iraq has been a thorn in the world's side ever since the Gulf War when Hussein should have been deposed, and it's too late to turn back now. Terrorist dogma thrives on fresh martyrs; we need a strong leader who will see this through, and our President will. Unfortunately, when one side won't listen to reason, you have to fight, so let's get it over with.
(In the time it took to read this, President Bush had reacted to 9/11).
Ronald E. Springer is the Author/Philosopher of Moral Armor, the world's first fully-integrated moral philosophy based on the nature of Man. Featured on The Mitch Albom Show, NBC and FOX News radio affiliates, Mr. Springer is available for interviews, speaking engagements, philosophy workshops and seminars. Please contact RonaldESpringer@MoralArmor.com or visit http://www.MoralArmor.com for details. For a free three-part mini-course on morality-based happiness, send a blank email to: moralarmor@getresponse.com.
