MovieChat Forums > Why We Fight Discussion > This movie makes me angry

This movie makes me angry

posted 17 years ago by danalangdon
79 replies | jump to latest

So I am finished watching this movie. I hate it when I watch a movie that makes me physically angry as this one did.

My father was in the military for 23 years and so when I see someone like that LT. talking like she was I just get so angry because she should really be stripped of her rank for breaking her top secret clearance, which she did.

Interesting that she states that their intel from these "think tanks" gave the incorrect information- so than the Bush Admin DID get incorrect information? Wasn't she involved in giving that incorrect information? I come from a military family and that "just following orders" stupidity is not there anymore. If you find something morally incorrect or against the military standards than you're not supposed to do it. You report it. I'm guessing she didn't do that. She just waited so she could get her pension first. She promised to never speak of what she knew because of her clearance- guess that makes her a liar too just like everyone she's talking trash about.

The father of the killed soldier made me kind of angry too. Iraq was always about WMD. How can he get angry because he choose to make it about something different? He wanted vindication- and this film maker used his anger to his advantadge. That's sad- sad because he allowed himself to used and sad because he heard what he wanted to hear.

I almost say this is beyond a Bush Bashing movie(though there was plenty of bashing there). This is obviously an anti-goverment movie in my opinion. It's a propaganda movie about how much our goverment sucks. I love the comparison about us being like Rome. For his next movie he should do a DOC on a country that was very much like Rome- ENGLAND. That would at lease be based on some level of fact instead of this one sided crud he recorded.

What a poorly portrayed piece of one sided half truths. If you can think for yourself than this isn't the movie for you.

By the way.. Dan Rather? I would get a more honest answer from my 5 year old neighbor than that joker.

[–] kwacka2 16 years ago

This film is now out on DVD, and was reviewed on BBC World Service, complete with pro-American reporter (made statements like "I was expecting a Michael Moore film") and the producer, who tells us that the film is shown at West Point and he answers questions on it.

My memory of watching the movie tie in with the comments made, and this thread ties in with my views of IMDb - the vast majority of correspondents here are bigotted and intolerant. Theirs is the only view that they accept - another's view (whether intellectually valid or not) brings an outpouring of bile that would not be tolerated elsewhere.

With that comes ignorance. One writer reports that Israel has done everything it said it would do - patently untrue but I have little doubt that the writer has limitted knowledge of the current situation in the Middle-East, e.g. this weeks announcement that Jewish settlers' home would be built in East Jerusalem depite saying they would hand it back; possibly even thinks that that state was set up by international agreement rather than well-armed, well-trained militia (most of whom had served in WWII forcing families out of their homes (no, there wasn't a UN agreement that Israel be set up).

An announcement here that the motive for the attack on the WTC brings forth the "anti-American, you say we deserved it". An acknowledgement of the motive does not automatically mean that the attack is condoned; it is possible to hold both views, that a grievance exists but that the attack was an atrocity..

A redundant argument over how one man's son died - the basic fact (that he died) is ignored; the pertinent fact (that the war in Iraq was based on falsehoods -either intentional or unintentional - about weapons and terrorist connections (although you may not have seen Fox News say a couple a weeks ago that the report of the 600,000 documents seized in Iraq revealed no connections, other news services did report it) - Saddam Hussein did not tolerate terrorists.

Another writer here talks about Taleban being funded & trained by USA during their war with Russia. But why were the Russians there? Because the CIA were there first, to force a Russian invasion. Brzezinski (Carter's National Security advisor) & Robert Gates both state that covert CIA activities started 6 months before the Soviet invasion with the aim of bringing that invasion about Russia's 'Vietnam' - an unsupportable, unwinnable war.

"Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Brzezinski, 1998

[–] stucooper 15 years ago

u r a p#i%k. typical american *beep* learn about life and the outside world instead of your communist usa.

[–] squishie28 15 years ago

I bet scvlr pronounces Arab as "Ay-rab" and Iraq as "eye-rak" and Muslim as "muz-lim".

[–] nimbus-cain 14 years ago

Poor, poor Danalangdon.

Quote: "I come from a military family and that "just following orders" stupidity is not there anymore. If you find something morally incorrect or against the military standards than you're not supposed to do it. You report it."

May I suggest you check out both 'Standard Operating Preocedure' and 'Taxi to the Dark Side'. Maybe these documentaries will enlighten you to just how much "stupidity" exists within the ranks of the US army.

Of course, we're all stupid. Just pulling these facts from thin air. Making it up for a laugh.

As for you're remark about the comparisson between Rome and the present US empire. If you can't join those big black bold dots together then there really is no hope for you. You truly must be a simpleton.