MovieChat Forums > Deterrence (2000) Discussion > Antisemitic tendencies.

Antisemitic tendencies.


I am not really sure which problems this film is really going through... I would rather say it's really zynical and against anything, especially against reality. But i figured when i watched this movie, how someone from iraque would feel when he sees this fat little president, (and he is a jew also...) which is thinking 3 Minutes after he has heard about the death of 320 soldiers to throw the bomb on their homes, because their dictator drived crazy. The storywriter had a nice idea: " Ya, lets make a provocation. He is president, he wants to shoot a atomic mega giga bomb and he is also a jew. Let's say he do this all in a breakfast-inn, or something similar, with ordinary americans. Ya, that seems intellectual"

I mean ... why did i write "antisemitic tendencies". This man , president of the united states, jew, is talking with every ordinary american in this Inn, and asks about their opinions. BUT he never tells the real truth about the faked atombombs of hussein. He lies all the time when he wanted the opinion, because u can't make an opinion not knowing the real facts. At the end for some people this man is the bad guy, the president himself. U can't gave an homicidal maniac a gun and say "cmon guy, do what u want" And if he is aiming some people u gonna shot him. This is totally against every ethics. At the end of the film just some attritbutes are left and all are pointing to this president : : perfidious, lier, atheistic, Jew. The anti-semites would love this film.

reply

Alright, I've read this comment a couple of times now but I'm having some trouble deciphering this mess, so lemme get this straight. I gather you believe the film is anti-semitic but other than the main character being a jewish president having a tough decision to make, you don't really have an arguement. I don't know why they decided to make him jewish, maybe because Pollak is Jewish himself or maybe because it puts the president in a slightly more interesting position but I didn't really think that aspect of this character was all that important other than it adding some tension to the situation inside the diner. Politicians lie, the president is a politician, it's not all that surprising or uncommon. So why did you write "antisemitic tendencies"?

reply

Sure. Ignore the dripping anti-Muslim bias and care only about it supposedly being biased against Jews. Nice logic!

I really didn't see any anti-Semitism in the film. The weak argument you made regarding that showed that, if anything, the filmmakers didn't have high opinions of politicians in general.

"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky

reply

>Ignore the dripping anti-Muslim bias and care only about it supposedly being biased against Jews. Nice logic!

Indeed. Of all the things to discuss and/or criticize about Rod Lurie's heartfelt but flawed film, this is what you focus on? My guess is that the poster is either rabidly Jewish or himself anti-Semitic. Else why the agenda?

reply

i think we should all know by now that the united states of america doesn't care all that much about muslims.

reply

Or anyone else for that matter who is not Jewish.

reply

[deleted]

"In real life, though, a Jewish President is likely to be ultra-liberal"

You seem to have missed all those 'pretend liberals' like Joe Lieberman who will say anything to get elected but then immediately vote to send US troops to die in the Middle East for a war that will benefit Israel only. For someone who has US citizenship, they sure do send a LOT of money to Israel - over 3 billion a year!


"...and would rather lose the Middle East than drop a nuke on anyone"

I take it you also have missed all the talk by US politicos of bombing Iran's nuclear reactor - the ensuing fallout will kill thousands. But I do agree that they HAVE lost the Middle East - overspending in failed wars in the middle of a recession to the point of bankrupcy just to grab the oil in that region will do that to you!

reply

I would like to point out that the U.S. sends billions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries I'm pretty sure you don't have a problem with (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Qatar, etc.), unless you also view them as infidels, in which case it pretty much sucks to be yourself doesn't it? I also like that you turned a hypothetical statement which I also happen to think is accurate--that the U.S. would rather "lose" the ME then wage nuclear war there--and turned it into "I do agree that they HAVE lost the Middle East". In the future, please refrain from twisting other people's words in order to launch your inaccurate grandstanded theories. Or go to the Guardian's Comment is Free section, that's pretty much 100% of what they post there.

reply

"I would like to point out that the U.S. sends billions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries..."


Most of the money given to these countries goes towards buying arms from the US (every 1 dollar spent goes towards buying 1.25 dollar's worth of military hardware. The bilions spent is just eyewash to buy good P.R. and is meaningless when the money used is spent by the government to suppress/repress the native populations.

"...I'm pretty sure you don't have a problem with (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Qatar, etc.), unless you also view them as infidels, in which case it pretty much sucks to be yourself doesn't it?"

I'm not religious AT ALL. You have FAILED in your assumptions. I don't view ANYONE as an 'infidel' (a word used more by western imperialists and Zionists than native Middle Easterners). DOUBLE FAIL. I don't have a problem with native people defensing their land. I DO have a problem with illegal imperialist wars waged under the guise of 'spreading freedom' where you drop bombs on people and call that 'liberation' or claim to spread 'democracy' and wind up making the countries you invade LESS free than before. It's the HYPOCRISY I hate ! BTW, as far as 'sucks to be you', considering how bitter you sound, I'd say that you're describing yourself more accurately.

"In the future, please refrain from twisting other people's words in order to launch your inaccurate grandstanded theories."

My 'grandstanded theories' are based on fact - unlike your assumptions on 'infidels'.

"Or go to the Guardian's Comment is Free section, that's pretty much 100% of what they post there."

Aaaah. Why is it that every nitwit who gets upset on the internet starts going off on a tangent on so-called 'liberal' media like the Guardian? Please - The Guardian is as elitist as a lot of the other UK media. Just because they don't bend down and kiss Isra-hell's backside and are more credible than other UK media doesn't mean that they're free from bias....

reply

I didn't think the point was race (the premise was an Arab dictatorship attacking other Arab nations trying to take over the worlds oil markets). I thought the movie was about the Deterrence of people wanting to attack the U.S. with nukes if they think they can get away with it, whether it's muslims, koreans, chinese, russians, or africans.

The President could not mention that the bombs were fake until they were used, because that would compromise the whole advantage gained by fooling them into relying on fake weapons.

reply

Dunno if this is the place to talk about this, but I majored in Chemistry, not Physics, nevertheless, I have a reasonable understanding of the atom. So I'm stumped therefore, utterly stumped by the very notion that iraq could have bought and possessed nuclear ('Nuke-ular', lol) weapons, and not be aware that they were duds.

1) If iraq had nukes that could reach american cities, the first thing they would do is nuke Israel. The 2nd thing they would do is nuke Israel. The third thing they... You know what... This actually just keeps going like this until either we run out of numbers or they run out of nukes.
2) They would have had engineers and physicists in iraq who could have examined and tested the nukes, surely. In the real world, if iraq got their hands on just one nuke, they'd take it apart, learn everything they can about it and attempt to build more, so that they could nuke Israel. In the movie, surely these same 'men of science' could have examined these weapons, perhaps secretly testing 5% of each batch-purchase of nukes, for Q.A.?

I guess point #2 in brief is: How could any nation spend the kind of money nukes cost, and not do any kind of quality assurance testing to make sure they aren't being robbed. Actually, I think both point 1 AND 2 both point to the same point, most pointedly; How could they possibly have NOT known?

If this was explained in the movie, I either missed it, or have long since forgotten it. Could someone please help me out?

Peace

Raz

reply