I know it wants to avoid politics.... - Gunner Palace (2004) Discussion

[–] reostzombie13 19 years ago

Yeah, it's not like they have enough liberal movies out there.

"I didn't mean to eat your bunny" President's Cheif of Staff

reply

[–] Supertzar 19 years ago

************************************************************************

Uncle Rummy needs more SUCKERS like you in Iraq...

************************************************************************

1.

Bush was 100% certain that Saddam had WMD

- He has later admitted that there wasn't any...

2.

Bush implied before the war that Iraq had something to do with 9/11

- He has later admitted that there is no evidence of that

3.

Bush said on 1.May 2003: "...major combat operations in Iraq has ended."

- 138 american soldiers had died
- now (june 2005) more than 1700 is dead
- A general in Iraq recently said that 20,000 soliders could be sendt home in
march 2006 (when will the last american soldier be out of Iraq, and how many
will come home in a bodybag?

4.

Bush said that when they find Saddam the insurgency will decrease

- It didn't

5.

Bush said that when the Iraqi election is held the insurgency will decrease

- It didn't

6.

The american president is the smartest person in the world, he would never lie to the american people

- "I did not have sex with that woman"
- "I'm not a crook"

7.

Everyone who voted for Bush: sign up for Iraq NOW!

www.i-wanna-die-in-iraq.com

************************************************************************

Uncle Rummy needs more SUCKERS like you in Iraq...

************************************************************************

reply

[–] go_metro 19 years ago

Thank you Meme-bot.

reply

[–] lagnat1 19 years ago

did you forget to take your prozac today?

reply

[–] dire_straits01 17 years ago

Holy God. I didn't know this much stupid could occupy one board.....

Where the *beep* is the wormhole that allowed this???

If you don't like what Israel's doing.... Don't *beep* with Israel.

reply

[–] gopforever 18 years ago

you silly silly child

reply

[–] PhillyMobster 19 years ago

'I'm just finding it hard that somewhere in this movie were not gonna here one soldier be all like " Yeah! Im helping this nation rebuild and put a democracy in place! Yeah! Freedom baby!"'

Do you have a problem with their opinion? Cause I'd rather listen to theirs than some screwed up hippie who thinks he knows exactly whats going on overseas, when he probably hasnt even held a gun before

I can tell you for sure that there isnt a single guy in Iraq who is there simply because he loves the country. Those guys want to be home as much as we want them here, but this is their mission, and this is their job. They do it because the guys around them are doing it. I have a friend who recently got out of the Army, just before the war, and he started beating himself up about it. It wasnt because he was gung-ho Mr Rambo, it was merely that his friends were going off to fight a war, and he couldnt be there with them.

Its fine if you don't support the war, but dont complain if the troops dont agree with your opinion, because theirs is a whole lot more valid than yours.

reply

[–] blackfire 19 years ago

"Cause I'd rather listen to theirs than some screwed up hippie who thinks he knows exactly whats going on overseas, when he probably hasnt even held a gun before"

Screwed up hippie? Am I? Thank you for generalizing with such precision! I have to hold a gun in order to have an opinion on foreign policy? Fascinating.

"Its fine if you don't support the war, but dont complain if the troops dont agree with your opinion, because theirs is a whole lot more valid than yours."

Not to sound a little too "mystical" or anything but you can't see the forest for the trees. Being embedded with troops only confirms a few facts: They are doing their job, they are scared, Iraq is a *beep* up place and they want to go home. Arguing that their opinion on the war is somehow more valid than mine or yours is highly amusing. They are merely tools being employed by their government in order to accomplish a goal. I'm not trying to spin this so as to belittle the armed forces, but there is a definite oddness in elevating a 19yr old kid, who months earlier might have been flipping burgers or starting college, to some sort of all-knowing icon of American freedom because he let himself get shot at for a period of time. In other words, if developing a sound opinion on this matter balances on me enlisting and fighting off insurgents, than somebody is missing the bigger picture: There are no WMDs, and there never were any. The government made a mistake. Anyone who calls themselves human would agree that helping Iraqis is a good, and honest deed; doing it under false pretenses is just wrong. What would happen if a high ranking police officer, who suspected that you may be dealing drugs, planted evidence in your apartment because he couldn't obtain a real warrant. You do deal drugs, BTW. The cops enter your house, illegally, and find the suspected drugs. You may be guilty of dealing drugs, but the official is guilty of breaking the law as well. Soldiers talking about helping Iraqis is like the street patrolman on the news after the drug-bust talking about how what he did helped children. It's a good thing, but it is also nullified by his superior officer's criminal action. Now, back on track, I think Gunner Palace will provide an interesting insight as to the life of a young soldier in a combat zone, in a modern setting, without losing focus of the culture clash between Western and Middle-Eastern people. As to it's relevance as to whether or not America should be there, look somewhere else.

reply

[–] PhillyMobster 19 years ago

blackfire, my point is, you and a whole-lot of armchair politicians sit back here at home in the states and pick overseas operations to bits.

" I'm not trying to spin this so as to belittle the armed forces, but there is a definite oddness in elevating a 19yr old kid, who months earlier might have been flipping burgers or starting college, to some sort of all-knowing icon of American freedom because he let himself get shot at for a period of time. "

Well, sorry to break your self-worshipping bubble of superiority, but if you have not experienced combat, or at the very least, a deployment, and you have not worked with the Iraqi people for any reasonable period of time, no, your opinion isnt nearly as valid as that of your '19yr old kid'.

You know what dude, I'm sick of listening to the opinion of people like you. All you liberals refuse to admit that ANYTHING good has happened in Iraq, without adding a footnote to the effect that 'oh, but it was still the wrong war'. They just had free elections in Iraq. Iraqi National Guard troops are starting to become combat effective, and they still get disrespected by the Dems. And yet you still persist in calling Bush a liar, when the information he was given by the Intelligence Services was the same stuff that Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Jaques Chirac, and a multitude of others used to show that Saddam DID have WMDs. You're just nit-picking about the war, when its too late to do anything about it now. If you actually supported the troops, you would stop vomiting what-ifs, and start sending care-packages. But I'm willing to bet you won't do that.

reply

[–] blackfire 19 years ago

"All you liberals refuse to admit that ANYTHING good has happened in Iraq, without adding a footnote to the effect that 'oh, but it was still the wrong war'."

That says it all right there. You are a republican. You hang on every word that your adminstration feeds you. You insist on classifying anybody who doesn't agree with the war as "liberal" as if it means something. Again, my point is that Iraq is getting assistance under FALSE PRETENSE and when everyone comes to this realization, they will pull out. I never said I didn't support the troops either. Yeesh.

Well, sorry to break your self-worshipping bubble of superiority, but if you have not experienced combat, or at the very least, a deployment, and you have not worked with the Iraqi people for any reasonable period of time, no, your opinion isnt nearly as valid as that of your '19yr old kid'.

Self-worshipping? Right then. What was your point again?

You're just nit-picking about the war, when its too late to do anything about it now

You mean the war that a country started by ignoring the UN and starting with bad intelligence? Yeah, nit-picking.

If you actually supported the troops, you would stop vomiting what-ifs, and start sending care-packages. But I'm willing to bet you won't do that.

If you actually supported lawful government then you would stop vomiting Bush's agenda, and start holding your President's feet to the fire. But I'm willing to bet that you won't do that.

reply

[–] PhillyMobster 19 years ago

First of all, I don't give a flying crap about the UN anymore. After what they did in Rawanda, they deserve no respect. They passed, what was it, 17 resolutions against Iraq, they ran a super corrupt oil-for-food program, and name the last time a UN Mission has been permanently successful? Uh, what was that, ummmmm....Korea?

Secondly, if you deny that Saddam had WMDs, then you're an idiot. He killed thousands of his own people with them, and used them daily in the Iran-Iraq war. I honestly cant say that I know where they are, or if they even exist, but that 'bad intelligence' that you mention was the exact same intelligence that was used by everyone from John Kerry to Jacques Chiraq to prove that Saddam DID have them.

Let me pose a hypothetical. Under your logic of 'Lawful Government', does that mean that if Hitler had not invaded other countries, and had been content to kill people within his own borders, it would have been lawfully wrong of us to attack Germany? Sometimes international laws and human morality have to take seperate paths. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who were killed by Saddam. There are oppressed people all over the world who need help, but are being restrained by Communist, and Religious governments. Everyone has the right to freedom from persecution, and freedom to live. Yet under the 'laws' of the UN, the liberation of 27 million people is wrong. Can't you just put the past behind you and try and support Iraq now? They just had their first elections in fifty years. Doesn't that mean anything to anyone?

I am very much opposed to elements of the President's agenda, primarly his immigration policies, but I made my decision in 2003 about who I supported in this war. I will not be another John Kerry, and back the soldiers only on fair-weather days. Its been hard, and more troops are going to die. However, at least they'll be dying for people who actually value their freedom, unlike most of the people in this country, who just take theirs for granted.

If you think that the United States should pull out of Iraq at this stage, simply because we didnt find some WMDs, you are a heartless, politically motivated individual. You will leave a population of people virtually defenseless against years of civil-war, possible invasion by Iran, and eventually a new dictatorship. Then, someday, it will be someone else's sorry task to go back into Iraq for a third time, to finish the job that should have been finished decades earlier.

Whats done is done. Can we move on to a new chapter?

reply

[–] blackfire 19 years ago

So, the end justifies the means?

There are hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who were killed by Saddam. There are oppressed people all over the world who need help, but are being restrained by Communist, and Religious governments. Everyone has the right to freedom from persecution, and freedom to live.

Nobody denies this, but that is besides the fact.

Let me pose a hypothetical. Under your logic of 'Lawful Government', does that mean that if Hitler had not invaded other countries, and had been content to kill people within his own borders, it would have been lawfully wrong of us to attack Germany?

Your "hypothetical" is ridiculous. It was lawfully wrong for anybody to attack Germany and nobody did until they were invaded. Why? Because nobody would have cared if he hadn't touched anybody else! Modern day Africa is no different in this position where genocide is happening as we speak. They are not invading other countries, and look who is helping them on an Iraqi-scale now?

Yet under the 'laws' of the UN, the liberation of 27 million people is wrong.

It was never about "liberation" until the US got there, found no weapons, and realized that they couldn't just leave without doing something because it would be inhumane.

If you think that the United States should pull out of Iraq at this stage, simply because we didnt find some WMDs, you are a heartless, politically motivated individual.

They just had their first elections in fifty years. Doesn't that mean anything to anyone?

Listen, this newfound optimism that keeps springing up all over the place is just ignorant. I know it helps many people sleep at night but, Sir, you don't have the greatest handle on history, do you? Do you honestly think that the US will somehow turn Iraq into a flourishing icon of democracy, and that this democracy will last when they leave? That is just plain, good ol' unrealistic idealism. What happened to the British empire? More to the point, what happened to the US in Somalia? What happens when one country decides to reshape another? It can't. It's not that simple, and will never be until we all live in one big country, speak the same language, worship the same God, and have same amount of money in our pockets. Don't try to turn what was a weapons-hunt into some sort of deliberate humanitarian effort. It's insulting to Iraqis who do need help, but not under false pretenses.

Thank you, and good night.

reply

[–] PhillyMobster 19 years ago

Uh, rather than waste another 20 minutes typing a post that probably wont be read, I'll just say what I think. Yes. The End justifies the Means. Is there a problem with that? I don't think that the Iraqis are complaining.

And by the way, the ground operations in iraq were codenamed 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. Liberation of Iraq was always high on the goal list.

"Four things greater than all things are, Women and Horses, and Power and War." --Rudyard Kipling

reply

[–] MovieMan0283part2 19 years ago

"I don't think that the Iraqis are complaining."

Watched the news lately? Like in the past 2 years?

reply

[–] betacon02 19 years ago

Well that post was made half-jokingly. Yes just because you havent served does not mean you dont have any idea of whats going on. But in blackfires mind he knows more than the soldiers out there PERIOD! Another thing, just because we are soldiers does not mean we are 100% for the war and card carrying Republicans. From my experience, anywhere from 20% TO 35% are against the war and hate the Bush administration, or at least how they ran this war, myself included. I personally consider myself a left leaning Independent. Im pretty sure you will see a couple of soldiers in this doc complain about the war. Also keep in mind this doc was made during the first rotation when things were bad but most likely it takes place before the Insurgency took place, which is when I got there. I know the 1st AD was there when it started and got extended because of it, but Im not sure if the documentary crew was there at the time.

Look, as a Reserve veteran who just came back Im tired of these stuck up ultra liberal college students who look at me like some kind of occupier and ultra conservative neo-fascist and that I have no idea of whats really going on in Iraq while they do because they are "educated", while still working at the mall.

Of course I am also tired of those ultra conservatives who dont know about me serving my country and call me a "Commie" and Un American and suggest I move to Iraq (already been there) because I say the Bush Administration did not handle the war right, to which I reply I served my country in Iraq in 2004, did you? Or were you too busy hating gays and freaking out over the Janet Jackson Halftime show?

Sorry had to rant

reply

[–] shmrck78 19 years ago

I understand both sides of the spectrum; although I tend to lean more to the left. I think the major problem I have with this war in Iraq is accounability. If I worked as Financial Analyst and I advised all my clients that certain investments were solid, impossible to pass-up, and then everything went sour and my clients lost everything.......who would be accountable? Me, right? Well, what if I tell you that my bosses and their bosses and their bosses' bosses passed down the info and guaranteed it was legit? Who should then be held accountable? Them and I, correct? Well, what if this info was based on foreign investment firms advice and not one but several? Then you hear several other companies are warning against the danger of such investments and saying they will fall through and cripple businesses. You've heard both sides and you decide you will go with the advice from the larger companies because that best suits what your intentions were in the first place. Weeks later and everything falls through, clientele and companies lose millions upon millions and everyone is running for cover. Who is then accountable? No one? Or everyone who makes the decisions?

This is just an example and not meant to entirely reflect what happened in Iraq. My point is that almost no one has been held accountable for their actions. Blame has just been passed and passed and passed. In a company, where money and not thousands of human lives are stake, many would've been fire or demoted. In our government, that just hasn't happened and shows the U.S. population and the rest of the world how we feel about accountability. If all goes wrong, change the plan, promote it and force people to forget about your mistakes.

You can't go around blaming other country's intelligence when we were the ones who acted on it, not them. That's like getting caught throwing a paper airplane in school and blaming it on the kid who said you should do it but he didn't. We should've been positive.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

reply

[–] MovieMan0283part2 19 years ago

Agreed. The ultra-lefties and ultra-conservatives deserve each other...to bad the rest of us have to get stuck in the middle.

reply

[–] scott_rider 19 years ago

As a soldier and a citizen, I can say now, after coming off of deployment that the only reason this action was known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" instead of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" is that OIL would have been much too obvious an acronym for this administration...

reply

[–] TW_Iceman28 17 years ago

Haha-im super late on this-but does it ever occur to anyone that we NEED oil? "oh, dying for oil is stupid" Like its optional, like we dont have to or something??? Without oil our economy would come to a halt. How would trucks get food to stores and how would you heat your HOMES??? Unless of course your a mountain man who hunts his food-then of course a war for oil would be stupid. Your life depends on oil. We have to protect it. Until hydrogen cars are standard-then thats nothing to be ashamed of.

reply

[–] cronos777 19 years ago

What I want to say is:

1) WMD's were far from the only reason for going into Iraq, though they were the legal justification for the war itself.

2)As for the WMD's themselves, the fact is that all intelligence indicated Saddam either had or was extremely close to having them. It wasn't even just us. American intelligence, British intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Israeli intelligencem, even French intelligence indicated this. So when viewed this way, the war was completely justifiable. The thing is, once we got there, we found out everyone was wrong, including us. This in turn showed again just how flawed our intelligence system was, even after reform. This is why I believe the Bush administration needs to seriously focus on intelligence reform, because obviously it hasn't been working.

With the war now, I believe what we are doing is the right thing. We have started to rebuild, have helped the proceedings of successful elections, and are starting to set an example for the rest of the region (both with Iraq and Afghanistan). Unfortunately, this comes at a price, and we need to think about getting our troops home, just not at the expense of the Iraqi nation. In other words, we should be there as long as necessary, and no longer.

My final input is that none of us should be putting words in the mouths of the soldiers. Whether they believe in the war or not, the fact is they are doing there duty, and thus they deserve our utmost respect.

"Wisdom is not words spoken, but actions taken." - Jon

reply

[–] TekGuy80 19 years ago

Secondly, if you deny that Saddam had WMDs, then you're an idiot. He killed thousands of his own people with them, and used them daily in the Iran-Iraq war.

Umm you are aware we sold them to him, right?

reply

[–] PhillyMobster 19 years ago

What books have you been reading, TekGuy? Sure we sold him conventional weapons, (although very little, compared to what we gave the Shah) but we most certainly never gave him NBC capabilities. Why don't you just shut your flabby mouth until you can actually say something reasonably intelligent.

"Four things greater than all things are, Women and Horses, and Power and War." --Rudyard Kipling

reply

[–] booboo-29 19 years ago

You guys are funny. I remember an argument with a woman once who kept saying, "We armed him! We sold him weapons!" Ah. Yes. Those were US AK-47's and Mirage fighters and T-72 tanks his guys were using.

No, idiot, we didn't sell him WMD. None. Please stop preaching your stupidity and ignorance, Michael Moore will do it for you.

reply

[–] ham2k 19 years ago

"There are hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who were killed by Saddam. There are oppressed people all over the world who need help, but are being restrained by Communist, and Religious governments. Everyone has the right to freedom from persecution, and freedom to live. Yet under the 'laws' of the UN, the liberation of 27 million people is wrong."

OK. That's great! I assume the US will now liberate the people of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Maybe Belarus? How about Sudan? China? The list could go on and on. The human rights and welfare of the Iraqis is a post-war excuse. It can never ever be a justification for war by the US.

Saudi Arabia and China are extremely oppresive regimes. Now the US has attacked and 'liberated' (peace through war?) the people of Afghanistan and Iraq what is their excuse for not 'liberating' these people. Of course they are important political and economic allies of the US, they would never engage in a war, it would not be beneficial at all for the US. But that shouldn't stop Russia, France or someone else, should it?

The US still uses UN resolutions (in a very technical manner) as the reason for the invasion of Iraq. The UN cannot be irrelevant and the Iraq invasion legitimate simultaneously.

As for your hypothetical, NATO intervention in Kosovo was technically illegal but people are willing to look the other way because it was genuinely launched to protect a genocidal movement (although it seems European genocide is more important than African genocide to powerful governments). In history a move to knock off Nazi Germany would have been looked upon with admiration. No one knows how the Iraq war will be looked at by history, it usually depends upon the outcome.

In any event, the invasion was not justified.

reply

[–] ppruneposts 19 years ago

To throw in my two pence worth...

Pre-emptive strikes cannot be seen as legal - can they? How do you draw the line? Does someone, pre-emptively shooting an unarmed burglar have the right to do that? Okay, scratch that example, as you're Americans, and in America the gun is the law... But in the civilised World, we don't. Look at the recent changes in law made in Britain.

And the reasons for attacking... so far it looks like the US' foreign policy is dictated by oil - no change there. But now they also seem to be twisting in some sort of Christian Crusade. "Christianity against the Muslim infidels!" I think attacking without concrete evidence is, or should be, deemed as highly illegal by a responsible global society.

Bush should have come out and sorted out the probelm of no WMDs being discovered instead of refusing to admit that had been an error. Blindly pushing on with the crusade is further alienating the rest of the Western World.

Kerry was labelled as a flip-flopper for being diplomatic - whereas normally this is seen as a reasonably valued trait, he wasn't nearly as gun-slinging and tough talking. Perhaps he should have paraded around in his uniform some more. Hell, elect Arnie - he knows the sharp end of a gun alright.

The UN has been labeled as slow to act - but is slow to act always a bad thing in matters of such great importance? Has the US rushed into a task which is significantly larger than previously planned? I think any educated person would agree. So, leading an illegal war - no asking for help from the very nations who America shunned... Is it a suprise that America is at an all time low with former allies?

I applaud the installation of a freely elected government - but am sceptical at the track record of America's previous installation of governments. Arm them to the teeth, put them in power and invade when they get off the leash. What is the conservative argument for not helping the extreme genocide occuring in other parts of the World as we speak? Or after Somalia has the US foreign policy swung away from Africa? Not enough oil, the cynics murmur.

As you may tell, I'm European, and therefore not entirely in agreement with the reasons of going to war - but we all agree that it should be dealt with and sorted out properly now the milk is spilt - to butcher a proverb. Perhaps the US could hand out some of those profitable contracts to companies outside the US whilst asing others to muck in with a mess they didn't make, or agree with the methods of making. Perhaps a more careful forethought and planning might have created a better solution to the problem. I will wait to see if other dictators smothering democratic elections get the same treatment. It is not difficult to see the main - perhaps not only - but the main reason behind installing oil rich parts of the Gulf with pro-American governments...

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shunneson 19 years ago

dude wake up

reply

[–] evilkiller 19 years ago

Iraq bombshell goes mostly unreported in U..S media

Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required—and major news outlets virtually ignore it.

A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.

The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair’s office with the prime minister’s close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided,” the minutes state.

The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: “There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as “facts” derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous U.S. official saying the memo was ‘’an absolutely accurate description of what transpired” during Dearlove’s meetings in Washington.

Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo’s key charge that the “facts were being fixed around the policy.” The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.

In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were “wondering why it’s not getting more coverage in the U.S. media.” But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn’t prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair’s political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo – but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats’ letter.

Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:

“Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?”

As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason’s second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that “critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.” It’s hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.

reply

[–] crashcartjockey 19 years ago

You are not allowed an opinion unless you have been over there. Until you have spent a night sleeping with one eye open in the desert of Iraq, waiting for something to happen, you are not entitled to have an opinion. You may think that your opinion is the correct one, but until you have offered to sacrifice your life for this country, you are not entitled to your opinion.

First off, yes it sucks being there. Away from husbands, wives, children, family and friends. The conditions are miserable and the food, most times is worse. But everyone that signed up, knew what they were getting into when they signed on the dotted line.

No, no one really WANTS to be there, but they don't spend all day bitching about being there. Correction, about one in every 10 - 15 soldiers bitch. the others know that someday they will get to go home and persevere.

Is morale as bad as Michael Moore says it is? Not even close. Of course had he even one time thought of interviewing soldiers over there, instead of soldiers fresh out of surgery and still under anesthesia, they either would have laughed at him or shot him "the bird".

Most soldiers don't care why they are there. It seems to be more of an issue for the liberals that haven't gone anywhere, than it is for the soldiers that are actually risking their lives.

If I here, the phrase "Clinton lied, but no one died again" I may have to choke the person who said it. That's right no one died when Clinton lied. And that's right, no one was dying in Iraq, before we got there. Oh wait no Americans were dying, before we got there. That's all that really matters. NO AMERICANS died before we got over there. Never mind the 200,000 - 300,000 Kurds being killed ovver there, they don't count. Never mind the torture chambers that Saddam Hussien had to torture the families of those they thought were being traitorous. They don't count either. They weren't American either. No all we focus on back here in the good ol' U. S. of A. is our american boys going over there and getting killed.

Yes, we have had a lot of Americans get killed over there. Some were even my friends. You see, I served my time over there. 15 months, that seemed like it would never end. I came back proud of what I had accomplished over there. Saddened, by the loss of a couple very close friends. Embittered, by the way the nation saw what we were doing as wrong. You see, we may have gone there under false pretense, but what we gained, out weighs those losses.

I still wake up at night with nightmares of the things we found there. I still cry when I think about the friends I lost. I have talked to the families of the friends I lost. Although there is still sadness, they are not bitter. They know that their sons and husbands died defending this country.

So no, you are not entitled to an opinion, until you have walked the walk.

reply

[–] bhawk2 19 years ago

NEWSFLASH! In America we are ALL entitled to an opinion or did you miss that part of the Constitution that you allegedly/supposedly swore to uphold when you allegedly signed up for the service. My father was a two term Vietnam vet, but I don't consider myself dishonoring him (nor does he) when we discuss our intervention in Vietnam as a failed foreign policy. No more, no less. Just BAD decision-making. This Administration,(and the zombies who are down with it) have a very difficult time admitting when something is wrong. I am fortunate that failed foreign policy blunder didn't cost me my Father. I would have thought that someone would have learned the lesson, but no.
We didn't follow our Secretary of State's own doctrine and look what a fine mess we have gotten ourselves into.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Raknrun 19 years ago

This is meant as a reply to Blackfires original post:

I agree with some of your points, though you might double check some facts. There were WMD's found in Iraq, just not the whole stash expected by every intelligence service in the world (the amount found would only have been enough to kill maybe half a million or a million civilians).

As to your parallel to the cop scenario, let's make it more accurate: A high ranking police official uses past information and info from informants to get a warrant based on a court ruling (as per the UN resolutions in the case of Iraq). When the police enter the house (legally) they find no drugs (or actually just a little, say a baggy full of heroin). They then search the house and find the drug dealer hiding in the basement and arrest him for the numerous warrants already in existence. They also find the bodies of many innocent neighbors (men, women, and children) who disappeared because they didn't want the drug dealer operating in their neighborhood.

After the arrest, the city sends in the public works departments to clean up the neighborhood and fix anything that had fallen into disrepair during the drug lords reign of terror.

Just my opinion based on actual facts...

reply

[–] andrew-jones5 18 years ago

'There were WMD's found in Iraq, just not the whole stash expected by every intelligence service in the world (the amount found would only have been enough to kill maybe half a million or a million civilians). '

This is total rot. Give me your sources please.

I have devoured every media source on this sordid mess from the out set. and there has been no reported stocks of WMD found. If they had i think old Wok eyed bomb happy twat twat the is the PM over hear would have let us know about it. about 1000 times over

'Work is the curse of the drinking classes' Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] peteostro 19 years ago

Sold As Freedom

You want to save the world?
I can tell you what to do!
You want to end terror?
This solution is for you!
Answer the call up join the proud the few.
Pull on the trigger with your heart and soul
Cause war is peace now we know.

Fight fire with fire!
Douse violent flames with gasoline
Fight fire with fire!
Spite your foe with an all out holocaust!
Fight fire with fire!
Pour gasoline on the world inferno,
Burn it so hot that the world incinerates
when they're all dead we'll have no issues to resolve.

To end terror it takes a special skill
kill, kill, kill?
Til there's nothing left to kill!!
Don't question orders-
do your job and move.
It's a 9 to 5 and 5 to 9
to makes sure no one's left alive

Fight fire with fire!
Douse violent flames with gasoline
Fight fire with fire!
Spite your foe with an all out holocaust!
Fight fire with fire!
Pour gasoline on the world inferno,
Burn it so hot that the world incinerates
when they're all dead we'll have no issues to resolve.

Join now! Don't wait! Make death, Your date!!!
Salute and fight! Fight for the wealth
of the few! wrapped in a flag and sold to you.
Sold as Feedom it's up to you to see through lies
by those who've led us to endless world strife.
What this world needs is something new!
What this world needs right now is you!
Any *beep* can murder kill, kill, kill!!!

reply

[–] Supertzar 19 years ago

If you support the war so much PhillyMobster (and love guns)

why don't you sign up for Iraq NOW ?

www.I-WANNA-DIE-IN-IRAQ.com

http://bushflash.com/ma.html

*******************************************************************************
Uncle Rummy needs more SUCKERS like you in Iraq!

reply

[–] mingo-2 19 years ago

Philly, I own 4 guns, (all long arms and not an AK 47 in the bunch), I served 16 years in the Navy (4 active, 12 reserve), I went to Desert Storm. So do I have the right to speak? This war of Bush's is a DISASTER! Motivated by something other than what he told us, poorly planned, and doomed to failure just like Viet Nam. Admit it, it's going badly and not going to get better. We can stay another 20 years and loose 50,000 + people and when we leave 2 weeks later it will be Beruit in 82, or we can leave now and the same thing will happen. Which do you think is a better choice?

reply

[–] eo_guy 19 years ago

This might give you some insight into where the film stands...

http://www.ent-on.com/home.php?PT=A&ID=79

reply

[–] michael-r-ramsay 19 years ago

"...Again, my point is that Iraq is getting assistance under FALSE PRETENSE and when everyone comes to this realization, they will pull out."

Wrong. Do you think "everyone" is blind? Deaf, maybe? Do you think this "everyone" you speak of has no knowledge that the WMDs Bush claimed were there, simply aren't? Nobody is going to come to some realization and pull out, as you stated. There is work to be done in Iraq. I will be honest and tell you I am unhappy with how our President started this war, but we're there now, so lets focus on what has been done and what will be done for the Iraqi people.

Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under
reconstruction, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools
have been built in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraqs higher educational structure consists of 20
Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January
2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5- 100-foot
patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a navel infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraqs Air Force consists of three operation squadrons, 9
reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and
night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando
Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and
equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over
3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad
stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical
facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the
first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school
by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and
phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio
stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

You see, its not all about the WMDs. Try and focus on the bigger picture here. Those WMDs you keep bitching about? They are NOT the bigger picture.

Myself and many others are quite unhappy with WHY we wen't into Iraq, but I'm damned proud of what we have and are continuing to do over there.

reply

[–] peechee 19 years ago

Thanks for putting things in perspective Michael r ramsay. I never supported the war and don't support the Bush Administration. I guess you could call me a liberal. But it is heartening to hear that we are making a difference. Why can't they report those statistics on the nightly news instead of/along with how many have died since the war began. All we hear about are the insurgent attacks and car bombings.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10-is-C 19 years ago

i think you are an idiot. its kind of funny to think that you think all these soldiers have like some kind of political motive. i hardly ever meet anyone else very interested in politics. i am in charlie battery of 2/3... i didnt go downrange with them, but most of those soldiers tried to keep their mind on the positive. it has nothing to do with politics.

reply

[–] betacon02 19 years ago

Exactly 10 is C!

I was also there but I was in the REAR WITH THE GEAR, but of course that doesnt mean I didnt get shot at once in awhile and have RPGs hit nearby when I was at BIAP, then later Camp Arifjan. Still I didnt experience anything close to what these guys experienced going out everyday. Yes many soldiers are for the war and many against it, but we never get into those political/philosophical debates the movies like to make you think we do. We spend our time *beep* to deal with whats going on around us. And to those idiots, like blackfire, who think they know more about whats going on in Iraq than those who have served, being in different country with other people of different cultures gives you a better persective of the world than sitting on your fat ass watching the news between American Idol and Survivor. Also my military experience is worth more in the job field than your dime-a-dozen degree so nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah! :p

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviekid21 19 years ago

"But by the logic of your statement, almost nobody in the Bush administration is qualified to make a decision on "what is going on in Iraq", since almost none of them have served in combat, shown any empathy for what is going on in other countries aside from how to profit from them, or seem to care about getting rid of oppressive leaders around the world except the ones who happen to own big oil fields."

I completely agree. If being a soilder in combat, means you can have an opinion about the war, than the Bush admin. doesn't have a right to an opinion.

Also, what happened to the first amendment? Conservatives are the first to use it to defend their right to show off their religion, but if someone is saying something they don't like, they tell them to shove it and they don't have a right to talk.

Also, about the elections. The Iragi's spent over a week waiting for the results. Why? BECAUSE IT'S A DEMOCRACY! They counted all the votes, and made sure all ballots were in. They didn't jump to conclusions, and announce a winner before half of the nation had their ballots even turned in.

reply

[–] pgbrush 19 years ago

Moviekid21 writes: "Also, about the elections. The Iragi's spent over a week waiting for the results. Why? BECAUSE IT'S A DEMOCRACY! They counted all the votes, and made sure all ballots were in. They didn't jump to conclusions, and announce a winner before half of the nation had their ballots even turned in."

Assuming that's some sort of sarcastic jab at our own politics and procedure here, be aware of the fact that the United States is not a true Democracy. We are a Federated Republic and our collective votes represented by the electoral college. Without that, our democracy becomes, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "rule by the rabble." We cannot, in this nation of people who get into vehement arguments over the relative talent (or lack thereof) of people like Ashlee Simpson, allow too much of the collective to speak. Do you really want the same people who vote for American Idol to speak out en masse about the current state of the government?

The average person (represented here by those who continue to use the term WMD's when clearly the war in Iraq is a precursor to the destruction of all oppressive regimes in the world) knows as much about politics as the media tells him. Kind of like the person who, a few posts ago, said (and I'm paraphrasing) "If you're not a liberal, then you must be a Republican". The two are not diametric opposites, nor even the same category. Republican is a political party that more or less embraces the conservative ideal. Liberal is a term that should represent an ideology that, because of such forward thinkers (note level of sarcasm) as Mr. Keynes and Mr. Roosevelt, favors the true oppressive regime of the welfare state.

True liberals oppose the war simply because the economic outlay depletes the funds they have earmarked for "wealth disribution". People who are liberal because it's trendy to say "I hate Bush" should stick to voting for American Idol and let other, more worthy people worry about political concerns...

reply

[–] betacon02 19 years ago

Well that post was made half-jokingly. Yes just because you havent served does not mean you dont have any idea of whats going on. But in blackfires mind he knows more than the soldiers out there PERIOD! Another thing, just because we are soldiers does not mean we are 100% for the war and card carrying Republicans. From my experience, anywhere from 20% TO 35% are against the war and hate the Bush administration, or at least how they ran this war, myself included. I personally consider myself a left leaning Independent. Im pretty sure you will see a couple of soldiers in this doc complain about the war. Also keep in mind this doc was made during the first rotation when things were bad but most likely it takes place before the Insurgency took place, which is when I got there. I know the 1st AD was there when it started and got extended because of it, but Im not sure if the documentary crew was there at the time.

Look, as a Reserve veteran who just came back Im tired of these stuck up ultra liberal college students who look at me like some kind of occupier and ultra conservative neo-fascist and that I have no idea of whats really going on in Iraq while they do because they are "educated", while still working at the mall.

Of course I am also tired of those ultra conservatives who dont know about me serving my country and call me a "Commie" and Un American and suggest I move to Iraq (already been there) because I say the Bush Administration did not handle the war right, to which I reply I served my country in Iraq in 2004, did you? Or were you too busy hating gays and freaking out over the Janet Jackson Halftime show?

Sorry had to rant

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mariceag 19 years ago

hey y'all - first off - i just saw the film in an advance screening in my film class at USC, so im not talking out of my ass here. secondly - where's the love on this board? im hearing people talk a lot of *beep* about hating on war and then throwing down some hate on other people who have opinions differing from their own (hate and misunderstanding fures war...even on a discussion board). calm the *beep* down, show some love and clear, rational thinking, please.

so. i saw the preview, and must confess i thought this movie would be some propaganda pro-war thing. for my own political agenda, i was not happy it was going to be screened. but the preview isn't a fair reflection of the film's content - scenes of civilians being harassed are in there, soldiers clowning is included, but more than that, soldiers who do want to return home to their wives and kids are included too. EVERYTHING is included. without giving too much away, i think this movie was a much-needed human portrait of a soldier's day-to-day life in Baghdad. it needs to be seen by everyone. "hippies" and consrvatives alike.

reply

[–] bally_jlinx 19 years ago

Well, Rumsfeld served, so that's something. Cheney may or may not have served, but he did preside over the first Gulf War, so he clearly has some experience in the matter.

As far as Bush is concerned, neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt had served in a military capacity and both are acknowledged as great war time leaders. And before anyone complains that Bush is an idiot, and the war is unpopular etc etc. That and a lot worse was said about Lincoln. Look it up.

I don't think a president has to have served in combat to be any good, and I don't think that just because someone was good in combat means they'd be good as president. There are plenty of examples in American history that back that statement up.

But I do agree that blackfire is wacky. And I do think that those of you who fought in Iraq will probably have an easier time getting a job in anything. And sure, I don't doubt that the administration probably messed up a whole host of things. And no, I didn't go or serve, but I think it was right to send the armed forces there. But then again, I don't think everyone should be in the army, some of us probably would suck at it a great deal!

-ron

reply

[–] sbrough 19 years ago

It's a known fact that the majority of army personell are conservative. You could also argue that the number of people "re-upping" are conservative, believe that they are fighting for a good reason, or possibly just need the money - point is the army base pop. is just getting more and more conservative.

So, if you want a truly representative movie - most of the soldiers interviewed will favor the war more than oppose it. But if they're anything like the soldiers I know, live with, work with, and train with (not to mention that I'm a soldier too) - even if they don't agree with the reasons, why are they going to go over to Iraq and have a piss poor, "Bush lied" attitude? Sounds like a good way to lower unit morale and get you or your buddies killed - no professional soldier is going to do that.

reply

[–] TylerDurden87 19 years ago

It seems that the only explaination conservatives can give about the "faulty intelligence" in Iraq is that EVERYBODY GOT THE SAME INTEL!!! And your point? Someone on this board even mentioned that French PM Chiraq got the same intel, you do realize that they were against invading dont you? And yeah, the UN did get the same cartoons of explosives that were shown to our Senators, and guess what, they refused to invade.

Now back to the "faulty information," Bush's decision to invade based off this rediculous info reflects 1 of 2 things: Either he is a complete and total moron that cant tell the difference between a cartoon and solid evidence, OR he and his administration LIED to us. Take your pick. Personally I think is a total moron, but is puppetted by liars.

And of course all you pro-bushies out there will point out that there is no way to prove that he lied to us. That of course is because Bush refuses to speak under oath, he will not put his hand on the bible and swear that he is speaking the truth, does that not strike ANYONE as being odd? Even in the 9/11 Inquiry, Bush refused to testify under oath, he wouldnt even testify ALONE, he had to have Dick next to him.

reply

[–] tedhasdowns 19 years ago

saw was a pretty good movie

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] overseasltdan 19 years ago

One point that has not been discussed enough is the point that the soldiers of 2/3 FA are professional, active duty soldiers. There is a huge difference between a National Guardsmen or Reservist who has been pulled away from their civilian life, and a full-time warrior who knows that he is going to be deployed, because that is what he signed up for. Most of the soldiers in the active duty Army and especially here in "Old Ironsides" are going to be inherently positive with regard to their obligation in Iraq because it requires a certain level of patriotism, character, and sense of duty to enlist to serve active duty in our country's armed forces. This is not to say that these qualities are deficient in the Reserve Component, but anyone who has worked with both active duty and reserve component soldiers knows that there is a distinct difference between the two.

reply

[–] logicmb 19 years ago

As far as the comment that going to Iraq makes those soldiers opinions matter more. I completly disagree with this comment I actually feel that being in Iraq for the war makes there opinions matter less. I know this belief is going to anger many of you. I want to make it very clear that I support our soldiers and want them to come home safely. But one thing that has historically proven true is that you can't be engaged in war and maintain an unbiased stance. This is the reason why a general can't hold a political office at the same time as his military one. This is way a SPC can't be a mayor in his home town. Historically when the military has a voice it tends to work against the gov't that they support.
I also want to state the fact that I believe we are doing a good thing in Iraq for the wrong reasons. We didn't go there to help anyone, and to the poster that blamed the UN for Saddam's rise to power you are looking in the wrong place. Saddam was a U.S. ally we helped him rise to power because he was against Iran, and by proxy Russia. I just can't help feeling that we should be at war in several countries in Africa, or in Saudia Arabia before we have a war in Iraq. These countries are guilty of some of the worst human rights violations in the world. Many actively pursuing agenda's of genocide, and if we are going to bring freedom to countries these places need it more then Iraq or Iran. But we are in bed with the Saudi royal family so we won't help there people and there is no appreciable amount of oil in Africa so we aren't going to help there people either.
On a final note, I spend alot of time thinking about whether fighting in this war is actually a morally acceptable thing for the soldiers, particualarly the pilots dropping bombs. I have yet to really decide, I mean they didn't decide to have the war, and they didn't necessarily sign up while the current administration was in power, so if it is immoral for them to be doing this they would have to go AWOL thus becoming criminals in there homeland that they very likely love since the signed up to help defend it. I think this is a particularly large moral quandry and I feel alot of pity for any active soldiers that have to deal with this issue personally.

Thanks for your time
and thanks to all you soldiers that help to defend our country

Logic

reply

[–] Akula765 19 years ago

Well you've hit the nail on head... all about oil. Just not in the way the left thinks it is...

While WMD's were harped on more, the invasion was also argued for on the grounds of spreading freedom in the middle east, and if you don't believe it, go back and read what people were saying. Now, while it's certainly true that there are plenty of genocidal regimes out there, it's foolish to say Saddam wasn't that bad... on the contrary he was one of, if not the worst offender(s) on the planet. Besides that, Iraq was a choice spot to try and get democracy to take root: Relatively secular, large middle class, good potential income (oil exports), and a decent infrastructure. And as we have seen in the last few weeks, it's spreading outward from Iraq. Now, why didn't we invade, say, Saudi Arabia, which is not quite as bad as Iraq was, but is pretty *beep* none the less? Well, for one, flat out invading Saudi Arabia would of suicided our entire campaign... the perfect propaganda for the islamofascits: the american military steamrolling though saudi arabia, occupying mecca... like that won't piss off every muslim in the world. We couldn't even confront saudi arabia with diplomatic pressure, because of how important their oil is (not so much to us BTW, but to our allies). By getting rid of saddam, and encouraging the growth of a friednly, stable government, we take away saudi arabia's only card. And when it's the Iraqis selling us oil instead of the Saudis, then we can turn around and start asking some pointed questions of them.

The idea of spreading freedom in the middle east is solid. Free nations don't mass produce terrorists, regardless of their culture. And it is definately possible, but it requires some thought on what needs to happen. Iraq was the most logical step. If you don't think so then you are either not thinking of all the variables, or could give a damn what happens to the people in the mid east and north africa even if making them free nations makes us safer, or your just so stubborn in your views that you refuse to give in to some cool, soothing logic.

As for the soldiers... most of them don't WANT to be there... they would rather be with their familes, but the feel like they SHOULD be there. This is the sentement related to me through a great many soldiers and marines who have been on the ground there. As for the morality of warfare... warfare is inherrantly immoral, but there are many things that are worse... like doing nothing about real evil. With that in mind, I wouldn't have a problem sqeazing the trigger on some Jihadist who would jump at the chance to go blow up an orphanage.

reply

[–] jim_smithson 19 years ago

as a brit i've never quite got to grasp with the american idea of a 'free' country - was wondering if akula could give a definition? heard recently that virginia tried to illegalise the wearing of low-slung jeans - is this true? sounds like the act of idi amin rather than that of a country that promotes freedom. not to be outdone, my country's onstensibly left-wing government is trying to bully through a bill that will allow a politician to (home) imprison any one he sees fit, with out putting forward any evidence....it's all a bit worrying.

i would also like ask, though oil must have been a major factor in the decision to go to war, does any one think christianity may have played a major role? I am not too fammiliar with any faith, christianity included, but i believe Bush is, if not a fundamentalist, at least a fairly vigorous christian, and the middle east is very important in the christian world? Is there something to do with the final reckoning or something, and the jews have to witness it? could this explain america's (arguably) biased support for Isreal?

again from a british point of view this has been mentioned as a possible reason for Blair's (a practising christian as well)close support of Bush, and there is a worry that Blair, now fairly entrenched in his position, is stealthily employing other christians into his cabinet, and would like to give faith based organisations more power over public services such as schools and hospitals....i believe this could prove to be a dangerous and divisive trend - went off on a bit of a tangent there - sorry

reply

[–] ppruneposts 19 years ago

I'm going to allow the words of others to illustrate some of my sentiments.

The two, vastly different, speaches given on the eve of the invasion speak volumes to highlight the different attitudes of the American and British cultures.

The British speach by Lt.Col Tim Collins

"If you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory. We go to liberate, not to conquer. We are entering to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Don't treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country. If there are casualties of war, then remember, when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest, for your deeds will follow you down history. It is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birth of Abraham. Tread lightly there."

The American speach by Vice Admiral Timothy Keating

"When the president says 'Go', look out - IT'S HAMMER TIME!" (followed by We Will Rock You at high volume)

The US' current posturing towards Iran continues an extremely worrying trend in Bush's Christian Crusades. Have Iran developed nuclear weapons despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) carrying out weekly inspections? Bearing in mind that this Agency is the only agency qualified to judge that, it would appear that the American threats of the use of military force are based on other political and less factual motives. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure the more blind and biased American, such as the guy posting above who labels the Jihad soldier as "running off to blow up an orphanage", will be able to ignore the American policy of using force before diplomacy. But in the words of one of America's great philosophers, Abraham Maslow - "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

It's getting harder to tell the lunatics and the leaders of the western nation apart.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ppruneposts 19 years ago

Sorry - it appears I needed to spell out more carefully that being against a full scale military assault as the only tool to use does not make me a "nut" or a terrorist, or whatever name you'd like to throw at anyone who does not agree with your particular brand of politics. Also, I don't think the argument about the IAEA is one of capability, but yes, I do feel that the IAEA, as the chosen body for regulating INTERNATIONAL nuclear usage for peaceful purposes are the chosen body for doing this - not one nation's scientists. In this manner, I do think they are better qualified as the agency is more representative as an international perspective and less likely to be coloured by one nation's particular political stance against another nation who they see as a trouble maker for not bending to the whim of Americas desires. Until then I feel that it is illegal to assume this and to launch further pre-emptive strikes. I am not in favour of nuclear weapons, and I feel America's policy of pre-emptive strikes has forced these nations to arm up in order to have a defence against the threat of an American invasion, thus creating a worse situation than before. I stress again, I feel it is an international issue, and therefore upto an internationally representative agency to decide this, not America acting out their own whims.

The Jihad soldier was borrowed from the other post, and I also did not agree with it - if you read carefully.

Being against a use of force as the only way forward does not mean I do not endorse the removal of Saddam Hussein and his tyranny - however I do feel that more careful consideration could have been made of the situation; a kneejerk reaction was not neccesarily the best response and could have made things worse than they needed to be; a international response and subsequent reorganizational efforts may have had a greater effect and help Iraq more than the current efforts; that global policy should be governed by an international body.

I know that's not what you want to hear, and I know you think America has the right to govern global events as and how they see fit. In such a scenario how do you safe guard against America reshaping the politcal landscapes to remove any obstacle to their own policies and beliefs? Surely in doing so you are removing democracy from the global stage.

Once again, I will clearly spell out that I do not believe that Saddam Hussein was a positive influence in this world by any stretch of that definition - nor do I belive that the American-led invasion has been the best solution. Unfortunately, we will never have a chance to try another option. I believe a faster, more efficient restructuring of Iraq could have been achieved by an international effort - thus benefitting the Iraq people. After all, that is what we're all aiming for, right? I realise it is both easier, and more satisfying to label anyone against the knee-jerk invasion as a nut or terrorist, but I think that only smacks of having no other arrows in your quiver.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] logicmb 19 years ago

This is in response to Akula765, mostly. Akula you say that spreading freedom in the middle east is a good idea, which I don't disagree with, but forcibly implanted gov'ts are rarely successful. I don't understand this stubborn belief many Americans hold to that because something has worked really well here it will work well elsewhere. And if you do believe we should take things that work and force them on other people and cultures, then maybe we should start forcing everyone in the world to live like Inuits(eskimo's) as there society is almost completely free of violence and anger, existing in a fairly egalitarian state. Hmm, for some reason that seems better then the 22k deaths from handguns alone we had in the U.S. last year. But alas our capitalist democracy is the best gov't on the planet, it doesn't get better and we're gonna make sure everyone else agrees and uses it, at the point of a gun if we have to. Furthermore I wasn't making the argument that warfare is inherrantly immoral I don't feel thats true, but for warfare to not be immoral for one side the other side has to be performing immoral actions that violate certain "natural rights" or maybe violate certain "moral principles", whatever ethical theory you use.

Finally, you like many people are already planning an extended war against multiple nations, first we take Iraq, then we can move on Iran, then maybe we turn on our "allies" Saudi Arabia. Implanting highly friendly gov'ts all along the way. Many of these people see that this is our plan and they will continue to fight us however they can, just as we would fight conquerers of our nation, there is nothing ignoble about that. There targets tend to be objects and area's of terror, now as much as I dislike this, when your opponent has a standing military that you can't hope to defeat through conventional warfare your left with very little in the way of effective force outside of this, which essentially has made America a victim of its own military success. I'm not trying to justify the actions of these people in killing civilians(which I believe is inherently wrong), I'm just saying that from a military perspective its basically the only option left that they can perceive.

reply

[–] betacon02 19 years ago

We do not know less, we know as much as anyone else. Our opinions are as diverse as the civilian population. But thanks for the respect.

reply

[–] hundeswehr 19 years ago

we're gonna hear the views of who ever speaks in the movie.

since the majority of folks over there are supporters of the war...it might be unlikely that they'll hae a guy against it...or maybe they might...we don't know...we are not the makers of this film.

this will be the reality over there...no blind patriotism or hippy bush bashing...

it'll be fair and balanced most likely

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] honeycomb2 19 years ago

From the trailer the tone of the movie is very gung ho. A lot of the GIs look stoned and brain dead on heavy metal and rap. No introspection or articulate questioning of where the *beep* are the wmds that Bush used to justify the invasion, no respect for the people or the culture they are trampling over.

The movie is probably more effective as an anti US waragenda tool than Moore's polemic.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bally_jlinx 19 years ago

I really wish I could take your statement, have a video of you making it and then put it on commericals 24/7.

You know exactly what the result would be.

-ron

reply

[–] goalkeeper04 19 years ago

These people are willing to die for you, you inconsiderate piece of *beep* They have no respect for their culture? Yes, you are right. They only go well out of their way to avoid civillian casualties at the risk of their own lives. You have no respect for a cause bigger than yourself.

reply