War


I just watched the trailer of this movie and couldn't help but wonder why this movie was being made. Most everyone that I know, possesses the knowledge that war is a horrible thing, whether they are for it or against it. Many men have taken up arms for this country in the past and did so proudly. During the trailer they showed boot camp. Based on what I saw they will make boot campl look like an evil brainwashing camp where young Americans are taken and turned into murdering zombies. They then show the same soldiers in Iraq killing Iraqi's by the dozen. They then show the same soldiers back home and having a horrible time dealing with life after war. It sounds to me like this is an anti war movie made by the left wing.

Why not make a movie that captures other era's of combat? Get the feel from other soldiers from other wars? I believe my grandfathers wouldn't be slamming the war, even though they were both injured in combat badly.

I have absolutely had it with Liberals making movies slamming Conservatives. I hope the same people that made this movie will make a movie about the horrors of the Hussien reign of terror. Or a documentary about the people that actually carried out the attacks that mamed the US troops. Maybe if there weren't a world with Muslim extremists we wouldn't need war. Maybe if they didn't ram planes into buildings and car bomb innocent people, action wouldn't be needed. But it is.

All this movie will do is cut down on the amount of people that go into the armed forces. I believe that to be the goal of this movie. That and to make money.

reply

[deleted]

I whole heartedly agree again well said kjetland.

reply

Kjetland-1 I believe you are missing the point. I mean I know all about people, does that mean we should stop making movies about them? No, because the only why to stop ignorance is to teach others to know and UNDERSTAND. There have been hundreds of movies made of past wars. And yes, we are undergoing a down pour of modern wars and events. But stopping them will only fuel the ignorance.

You may see this as an attempt to stop young men and women from joining the armed forces. But i see it as a way of preparing them. It would be far worst to make them go in there blind, though many of them do.

I'm not here to debate the war and our intentions. I'm here to support of troops. I say this movie is just what needs to be made to show America what is really going on. Because, though you may think you know whats happening, I've heard dozens of ignorant and prejudice comments made. Maybe, once everyone gets off their asses and opens their eyes, we won't need a production campany to force the truth on us.


reply

I believe it's ignorance that is being pushed in these movies.

The truth? This is truth seen through the eyes of one director. I guess I'm just tired of hearing about what is happening in the eyes of a Liberal Democrat. I'd love for a film to be made from the other side, for once.

reply

I have just recently browsed through all your posts, because of one topic you made slandering Sean Penn simply for his political views, instead of what the forum was for, which was for a movie completely unrelated to politics.

kjetland-1, you are one sad person. You apparently have a problem with the "liberal" viewpoints in film industry, that you must come and vent your anger on imdb message boards. Very classy. *rolls eyes* You have already lost, and don't even know it.

reply

I've lost? Lost what?

If these Hollywood types can't make a movie without adding politics into them, then I can go ahead and comment on those movies.

And it's not anger. It's irritation. I'm so tired of Hollywood mass producing this crap.

reply

1) What would you recommend? that he go to Hollywood, to every production company, to every director/actor/producer in that town, and tell them his viewpoint THAT way? Would that be more "classy *rolls eyes*"?

2) Slander is an act of speaking something that you know is not the truth. Libel would be printing it. Talking about Sean Penn's ridiculous political viewpoint is neither.

Both points you tried to make are examples of the leftist arrogance that is causing the Democratic party to sink like a stone.

reply

[deleted]

I don't know if anyone has noticed this (and maybe I'm being paranoid), but the celebrity media is ALL ABOUT making Bruce Willis look like a chump. Not to say he's made some great movies lately, because he hasn't really. And I like the guy. But, every time I read about how happy Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are, they put a picture of Bruce Willis looking drunk, or a really awful shot of him as an inset.

As soon as he came out of the Republican closet, this is what happened to him.

Same goes with Mel Gibson. He said some really stupid and ignorant things--WHILE DRUNK--and everyone is all over him. He even apologized, and you have Rob Reiner calling it "not good enough." Rob Reiner is well-known for being a hack director, which is why his movies have consistenly failed for the last ten years, but now the mainstream celebrity media is lionizing him--I heard CNN call him "legendary director Rob Reiner." LEGENDARY??? He made Alex and Emma a couple of years ago. I guess he's in the same league with Sam Peckinpah now. Yeah, Gibson screwed up, but I think he knows it.

reply

"Same goes with Mel Gibson. He said some really stupid and ignorant things--WHILE DRUNK--and everyone is all over him. He even apologized, an"

Two points:

1.) It doesn't matter that he was drunk. Being drunk doesn't make you a racist *beep* it just means you might let you racist side show.

2.) He didn't apologize. He blamed it on the alcohol.

reply

It's funny how Liberal Hollywood will condem Mel Gibson for being anti semetic but in the very same breath lionise the presidents of Venezuala and the Holocost denier President tom of Iran.

reply

Furby, please learn to spell and use grammar correctly before you come back here. Your comments are dumb enough on their own; the way you write them makes you look illiterate. I find it difficult to have any respect for one's opinion when they can't express it legibly. Thank you.

reply

The fact is there are a number of Republican's in Hollyweird. Bruce Willis is not the "only" Republican or person holding conservative views. You have the Governor of California, you had the former Governor or California Ronald Reagan, Mel Gibson, Tom Clancy, Charlton Heston, Drew Carey, John Milius, and let's not forget John Wayne just to name a few. And. the political views of these people are evident all around, in the subject matter of their movies and written into the lines of their political action heroes and righteous warriors. The conservative Republicans in Hollywood have been more pervasive and have taken their cause directly into politics than two dozen Sean Penn's or Barbara Streisands.

Also, the people normally associated with giving Hollywood its "liberal" status are not a part of the Hollywood establishment at all. For instance, Michael Moore is a complete "outsider" to Hollywood. He doesn't live in Hollywood, he doesn't "do lunch" and Spago opr Drago, he doesn't have a mansion there and if anything he represents an alternative voice to the traditional conservative Hollywood.

And you can be sure that the people who made this documentary THE GROUND TRUTH and many more about the war in Iraq have little to do with Hollywood and its production machinery. These films would never get a greenlight in the business minded offices and conference rooms of Hollywood. The views being expressed in this film are many, they come from the mouths of witnesses, from the experience of soldiers and while the director and producers certainly have views, to which they are entitled, the voices on the screen belong to people who actually fought and risked their lives. The are intitled to their views and to speak them openly. In fact, I'd listen to them with greater attention and importance than I'd ever give to your bashing and smashmouth political postering, dserafin.

So, all this simple-minded smear of Hollywood being a "liberal" monolyth is completely idiotic and used to enforce political purity. I am not about to defend Hollywood or the views of any of its particular players because those of us who live in the rest of the country are not "doing their lunch" but you are so clearly wrong and ill-informed that it is embarassing to anyone with half-a-mind and a sound sense of reason.

reply

So our soldiers don't know they could get hurt or worse in war?

reply

[deleted]

She was just trying to get the truth out. I'm sorry I actually can't wait until it comes out to view. My husband is a Gulf War Army Vet and has PTSD and Depression and not to mention other problems. Yes, it's been 15 years since he went over there but he still lives with the "crap" everyday. You imagine being the lowest one on the chain and your CO puts a gun to your head to take your gas mask off before anyone to see if the "air was clear". That was playing russion roullette in my book with my husband's life. He also along with another guy was locked out of a bunker because they didn't make it in time when the alarms were going off so needless to say he and his buddy had to stay outside and withstand all the bombs and missiles going off right in front of them. I don't need to go any further. Whether it's brainwashing or making aware by preparing them or antiwar it's still going on and it's not going to stop anyone. I went to the actual website of this movie and read the bios and descriptions and yes it's true my husband was just like one of those men. He thought he was doing what was expected and the "right thing to do for his country". Yes he was 18 years old killing people with patriot missiles and guns. And now he's a 35 year old man slowly dying everyday from the pain of his past and the betrayel he feels from his country every time he is treated like "crap" when he goes to the VA clinic for therapy or whatever.
I dont think it was cutting down military I think it was just making people aware of what we need to do as family members and friends of these people. Be there, listen and support them.

reply

I don't believe your "husband" ever served. Patriot missiles are not a tactical offensive weapon. They are used to destroy inbound surface to surface missiles.

They also don't force soldiers to take their masks off to test the air. They have machines to do that.

Next time you feel like making stuff up, at least google it first to see if it checks out.

reply

[deleted]

You know, I don't want to insult this person if they did serve in the Gulf War. I know there are documented cases of PTSS and the like coming our of the Middle East, particularly after the first conflict.

BUT.

The whole thing about an officer pointing a gun at someone's head and making them take off their mask...I believe that exact incident was a plot point in an episode of the Showtime series, "Sleeper Cell." There was a long dialogue between a man named Tommy, who was an ex-soldier, and some terrorist dude. The dialogue contained the story this person just told.

Again, I don't know. She's probably going to come back with her caps-lock button stuck in the "on" position to try and make her point. And, if she's telling the truth, then the truth is crazier than I thought.

reply

The whole gas mask thing is BS they did that stuff in the army in 1940-1980 the military cannot hurt you in boot camp if they hit you they have to face a military court.

reply

I suggest you see the documentary before commenting on it's message. I saw it at Sundance and the take home message is that if we are going to send our men and woman off to war that we need to keep our promise to take care of them should they become injured in the line of duty. There was many appalling examples given of our governments complete failure to do this. Let us also remeber this is not the first time these accusations have been made...Vietnam and PTSD, Gulf War Syndrome, etc. Somehow I think there is truth somewhere in so many accusations. So really what this filmaker was saying along with the brave soldiers we saw at the premiere... is take care of your vets by doing something beyond your support the troops bumber sticker that you probably haven't given a thought to since you stuck it on your bumper. This I am sure is something all Americans want regardless if they are a flaming liberal or a staunch republican.

reply

Hmmm maybe you should talk to my cousin he lost both legs and an arm the army pays him $4,000 a month he will get that till he dies his house was gonna be foreclosed the army stopped the bank from foreclosing on his house paid all this hospital bills his wife is a nurse she makes $2,000 a month thats $6,000 a month his life is better after the war than before.

reply

Sorry, Kjetland, you're not allowed to have an opinion on this movie, because you HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT! Just like most of your brethren, you talk of things you know nothing at all about.

Not a single soldier in here get's political--they just tell you what happened to them. And why they signed up. And what they thought and were told was going to happen to them when they did sign up.

You're sick of liberals? How sick are we of you headline readers and slogan spouters--and you, in particular, a TRAILER WATCHER--actually trying to debate real issues? Do your homework. If you still feel the same after actually SEEING this film, then that's your perogative. Until then, shut yer piehole.

reply

"Sorry, Kjetland, you're not allowed to have an opinion on this movie"

Yes he is. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. That's what an opinion is. It isn't fact, and it isn't something that has parameters placed on it.

I will give a lot of points to the left for being "up" on social issues, but if you had your way, none of us would be allowed to think anything at all. Don't ever say anything like what you said, unless you want to argue sematics with a centrist again.

reply

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14801666/

Apparently Gulf War Syndrome doesn't really exist. And Dear God let me emphasize that I am in no way slamming the troops who fought in it or saying that they need to suck it up or something. I just ran across it a few days ago and thought it was really interesting. And chances are that if you are on this board you will find it interesting, too.

Approximate number of movies I've seen in the theater: 68.

reply

"Sorry, Kjetland, you're not allowed to have an opinion on this movie"

Yes he is. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. That's what an opinion is. It isn't fact, and it isn't something that has parameters placed on it.

I will give a lot of points to the left for being "up" on social issues, but if you had your way, none of us would be allowed to think anything at all. Don't ever say anything like what you said, unless you want to argue sematics with a centrist again.


>>> AH HA! Nice editing done on my quote, Kris. Do you work for FOX news? I said, "you're not allowed to have an opinion on this movie unless you've seen it"! D'oh! Yes, anyone can have an opinion on anything they choose--i can have the "opinion" that all Chinese are inferior to whites, but unless i can back it up with solid facts, my "opinion" is worthless. Like talking about a film you haven't even seen. WORTHLESS OPINION if it isn't based on the fact that you've actually seen it. Get it now?

reply

"..but if you [the left] had your way, none of us would be allowed to think anything at all. "

What an ignorant statement. Most of the great movements of liberation and freedom have been by "the left" against extremist and conservative government trying to restrict the freedoms of its citizens. First and foremost. the civil rights movement in America was one of the greatest embodiments of our constitional principle that "all mean are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness..." Over and over, those with excessive grasp on power and a grandeous sense of themselves, like J. Edgar Hoover, James Eastland and Bull Conner, claimed the leaders of the civil right movement were "leftists" and accused them of being communists.

The leaders of the Labor movement who fought for a 40 hour work week, health care and retirement for workers in this country and a higher wage that essentially created the middle class wage earner in this country -- a great step forward in creating the highest standard of living in the world -- were accused of being leftists, socialists and communists. This same leftist labor movement the shipyards of Gdansk in Poland brought down an extremely conservative and entrenched totalitarian Eastern block state that lead to the fall of the Iron Curtain. The conservatives who opposed the rights of women to vote accused the Sufferagettes and Women's Rights movement as being duped by socialist and communist instigators who sought to destablize the nation. Just to name a few...

Truth be told, if the conservatives had their way, we'd be living under totalitarian regimes constantly inciting wars to hold desperately to their ill-gotten power and fuel the hysteria to fund their war machines. They would completely suspend individual rights and civil liberaties of citizens, just as they are doing today, in the name of security and controlling the citizenry. If conservatives had their way, they would eliminate freedom of the press, just as they are trying to do today with the New York Times and other less liberal publications, and restrict freedom of information to just those stories that support their policies and uphold their idea of national and homeland security. The greatest strength and security this nation has is freedom of thought and expression as well as the freedom to criticize the government.

Only when inept leaders like Bush and Cheney come to power do they need secrecy, a veil of cover for their deceptions and to destroy the public right to know everything that is going on at the center of the government and in the name of its people.

reply

How much did the vets get paid for making this "documentory" I hope is was more than a boxed lunch.

reply

The "norm" for making documentary films is that he subjects are not paid since the producers do not want to influence their opinions, conditions for their participation or create an artificial sense of obligation to the film.

That's not to say there isn't checkbook journalism going on everyday. Media organizations routinely pay for confession stories, secret revelations about celebrities, and gossip stories.

I doubt the veterans in this documentary got paid anything more than a box lunch on shooting day. They might have been given expenses to attending screening of the film after it was made which would be ethical because they aren't being paid for the opinions, but rather, to support their views and promote the film release.

reply

Just another blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

All you want is information that fits comfortably into your hawkish narrow-minded ideology. Kjetland you really should go live in a dictatorship or an oppressive totalitarian government, a place where people like these filmmakers are not allowed to shed-light on the truth. That's what you want is complete complaince and conformity of thought. It is the patriotic duty of citizen's in America to be critical, highly critical of the actions of its government. Benjamin Franklin, you know, a founding father who wasn't in his day considered liberal said that was every citizen's duty in a free democracy to critiize the government.

And with all the errors, incompetence and corruption of this government, it is the duty of every citizen in this country to rescue our public institutions and our world-wide reputation for fairness, even-handedness and human values that were at the foundation of the American revolution. When a zealous government sets out to deny basic human rights, to deny a prisoner the right to know the charges against them, the right to legal representation, to right not to be held indefinitely without a trial, the right to basic human treatment while being held in prison than every American has the responsibility to be extremely critical of that government and the individuals heading it like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. When our government begins to torture men and women, physically and psychologically in secret prisons that we have violated not only the basic international treaties under the Geneva Convention but we have violated our own Consitition and every value this country stands for.

Every citizen must be critical and this is the very essence of free democracy. It matters little if George W. Bush is a conservative. If he is, he is a very bad conservative and doesn't know the principles and values of the conservative philosophy. Or if the filmmakers are liberal. The Bush administration isn't being criticized for being a conservative -- they are being exposed for being corrupt, abusive and for violating the very principles this nation was founded upon.

reply

At what point did I say they shouldn't be allowed to make this movie?

I simply stated that they have an agenda and could have made this movie differently.

I obviously didn't say it simply enough for you robb-20.

reply

kjetland: You stated in your original post that you wonder why this film was made -- based entirely on just viewing the trailer. You stated you are sick of "liberal" making films that slam "conservatives." Well, first this is a free country and freedom of speech is valued by most outside the current administration. Second, this is not a simple-minded "liberal vs. conservative" dichotomy. In the main, regardless of whether you are a pro-war hawk or an anti-war dove, the problem consuming the nation is incompetience and ultimately the mistreatment of our own soldiers returning home from the war.

Yes, soldiers have gone off the war in the past and fought with pride for our nation. But those battles, wars, conflicts and causes were just. They came after we were attacked by foreign governments who wanted to impose their brutal and fascist regimes upon us. This war in Iraq was based on a lie. It was based on poor and faulty intelligence. It was poorly conceived and implemented. And since then, it has been a bad idea, riddled with misdirection and poor execution. That's a huge difference between past wars in Europe and the Pacific. America has always proved in the past to be prudent in the use of force and commitment of troops and that our actions in war are just, fair, and virtuous.

In this war, our current government has been exactly the opposite. They attacked under the policy of pre-emptive war (something never before used by this nation and generally opposed by liberal and conservative alike), they completely threw out the Geneva Convention, they've gone against our allies and friends around the world (except Britain) and they've pursed a failed plan. That is a huge difference between THEN and NOW.

This is not a documentary about WWII or and historical oversight of "men at war." This not not even a film about the opposing views of liberals and conservatives on war. It is about how we treat our returning soldiers and the only reason you think it is the left attacking the right is because your are looking to throw up an ideological and political smoke screen for avoiding the issue of how our soldiers are being treated at home.

reply

The following countries did not attack us: Vietnamn, Afghansistan, Kosavo, North Korea, Germany, Italy, England. We went to war with all of them.

Yes, poor and faulty intelligence that everyone in the world had. Russia, France, Germany. Everyone including a majority on the left are quoted as saying they believed Saddam was a threat.

Again, your pre-emptive thing is made invalid with Kosavo, Afghansistan..yada..yada.

I would agree that SOME of our soldiers get screwed, and that sucks. But it's happened in every war, not just this one. The fact that they single out this war and this administration tells me the director has an agenda.

I'm not saying the director should not be allowed to make the movie, just make it more even handed. But if she did that it would take away from her trying to shine shine light on the evil Bush Administration.

I have heard from plenty of soldiers from over there and they don't have the same contempt that a FEW others have for Bush.

reply

[deleted]

You know, it's amazing what topics come out in election years...like how, in 2004, Democrats were completely scrambling to explain why they voted for a war they said they never supported. Or, this year, during our incredibly hot summer--and an election year summer to boot--how Al Gore finally decided to make a movie about how totally freaked out we should be about Global Warming.

As soon as you disagree with them, they pull the Godwin Clause out and accuse you of not supporting freedom of speech, or of simply being like a Nazi.

Whatever.

reply

Kris Langley-

I have no idea who the "liberals" are of whom you speak, however, they certainly don't fit into your simple minded ideas about them. The position we've arrived at in this country is that under the currently leadership and miliary plans, it doesn't not matter if you are a liberal, moderate, conservative, liberatrian, Green Party or whatever... these clowns who are running the war, the intelligence, the interrogation/torture chambers and our foreign policy have completely screwed up. They've managed to take a very marginalized, uneffective, and uninfluencial group of militant Muslim fantics (Al Qaeda) who were never part of the mainstream of any country and transformed them into a super-power like world wide enemy by declaring and unending and ill-defined world war against them. By their own admission, the extremist conservatives in the Bush administration have said this war has no end in sight and will not end for decades or even our lifetime.

And because they've screwed up so badly in their execution of the war they are placing American's all over the world at risk, damaging our reputation for fairness, democracy, human rights and freedom. And most terribly they are wasting the lives and further engangering our Armed Forces. In essence, they do not believe in freedom and the foundation stones of our constitution. Their extremist views have never been compatable with our constitution and the wisdom of our founding fathers. I wouldn't go so far as to call them Nazi's, although they share similar views with some of them, they just don't believe in the basic rights of individuals and the constraints placed on government to assure they do not abuse power.

This is not a liberal criticism or one that Democrats have managed to articulate against them. It is just a simple fact.

reply

It won't end anytime soon, and just because we all have short attention war span from watching twenty minute presentations about WWII in History Class won't change a damn thing about that fact.

Like FIVE MINUTES ago, when I read that, since the Taliban is trying to reform (and failing), we are losing in Afghanistan. Now who is simple-minded?

That argument will NEVER work, so don't ever call me simple-minded. I will argue politics with anyone, but not anyone who likes to contract a liberal cheap shot at me.

reply

I certanly read nothing about the Talban and did not see anything on these boards about them reforming or failing -- what words are you trying to cram into whose mouths?

None of what has been said in here is a "liberal" cheap shot. You, Langley are throwing around blunt and broad political labels, callow insults and making cheap accusations that are common to the complainers who can spit out nothing more than liberal-this and liberal-that, blah, blah, blah...

This film is not a bunch of liberals talking about wonkish policy, It is about soldiers talking about their expereinces with war and returning home. If you listen, which I am most certain you will NOT because it would mean you'd have to stop spitting on "liberals" and listen to human beings, your fellow American citizens for a change -- precisely the ones you've sent to fight your war for you -- and that would not fit into your ideological insults and tiny world view.

reply

I don't get my news from IMDb. I read this on msnbc.com, that the US is obviously losing since there are still Taliban left. Guess we lost WWII sicne there are still Nazis in the world. If you get your news and opinions off this website, stop voting.

If you want me to listen to my fellow American citizens (for a change...wow, you know me well or something? Where do I live?), give me an American citizen with a true voice. Give me a soldier who understands the cost of war not only on his own family, but on the world as well. I can give you one, one very close to me in my family, who understands what this is about, and stands beside soldiers who understand as well as he does. This is a terrible war we're in, he knows it, his company knows it...the soldiers who have paid with their lives know it...and none of them care if you don't.

The world is complicated, and war against Islamic Fundamentalism is necessary and unfortunate at this point in history. Just because you don't realize this as the truth doesn't make it a lie. Bluntness and broadness are necessary at this point, if only to dilute the truth out of leftist hypocrisy. The left would have us all believe that war is not necessary, that this war in particular is not necessary because it's an affront to peace. Well, peace is not attainable unless we take the fight against Islamic Radicals to THEIR soil, which we have done with great success. Iraq had a dictatorship that both sides agreed was in need of removal, going back to 1998 as far as termed policy, so this isn't "Bush's War" like everyone enjoys calling it. The point is, at this point in history, we MUST FIGHT. If we don't, we will fall. Yeah, we all want to live in a peaceful world, but my peace is different than that of Al Qaeda's view of peace. So who is right? Unless we have a moral absolute, the world will fall and those who did not recognize the need to fight will be responsible.

So, Robb, maybe if you and I come to a middle ground where I listen to the soldiers' voices--oh wait, I do--and you read up on the history of this war that goes back a hundred years, we'll all be OK. I don't see that happening, as you STILL think I've called someone a liberal. There is no such thing as a liberal. There is the left, which are more conservative than the right. To put it this way, the town I live in is one that people like to call "progressive" in terms of political viewpoints, newspapers, etc. I like to call it "socialist," but that's just me, apparently.

Either way, quit trying to insult my intellegence, as you will be hard-pressed to do so. Small minded? NO. Calling people liberal? No, I used the word in its actual meaning. Robb, you're going to keep losing, but if you want to keep making yourself look like a fool, by all means, keep this up. Just because I have a different (educated) viewpoint doesn't make me wrong, Chomsky.

reply

We are going to disagree and that is all there is too it. When you speak you make a whole bunch of assumptions and cast aspersions upon those you are addressing. And you are dead wrong.

I have a number of family members who have served or who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am the middle ground but unfortunately with the extemist views expressed in our current government, my views by contrast might seem left or whatever... and I don't care. My views are based on principles based in the American revolution, our great constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You are simply inventing the rules as you go along, as is the Bush administration with its new duplicitous definitions for torture and interrogation.

What I have learned by listening to our soldiers is that the leadership in Washington, and this just isn't a few soldiers saying this, had a very poor Plan A and NO Plan B for winning the war and catching the bad guys. They have no exit strategy. They are fumbling and bungling with the capture, (Did they catch Osama yet?) detention, and determining who is the enemy and just some guy who happened to be walking down the street on his way to a wedding and ended up with his ass in a secret prison or Gitmo for the next two or three years. That's not effective, in fact, it is so mismanaged and based on poor policy that it is hurting our great nation. It is expensive, a waste of our soldiers time and outrageously ineffective in advancing our goals and seeking peace.

I was raised in the Midwest in a Republican family. I've worked on the staff of two Republican U.S. Seantors. Not the kind of crazy-eye extremist radical knee-jerk Republicans you have today who are leading this country further and further into danger and down long paths of war for which here is no end. Islamic fundamentalism and extremism has been around for 1,000 years or more and will continue into the future. This will not be solved and is only made worse by our government sending troops and spending billions of dollars everyday and they can't even FIND Osama. The British have dealt with Islamic radicals in the Mid East, the French have dealt with them in North Africa and every country in the region: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, etc. you have radical and militant movmements. This is not new to history and not simply an American imperative.

There is no question that any and all Presidents in the future of this country will have to deal with the issues of world conflicts and radical Islam, however, let us hope that they will not be as incompetitent, ignorant and ineffective as George W. Bush and the extremist Republicans. They have only succeeded in making the world much more dangerous at the same time undermining the basic values of our great country.

reply

If you think catching Osama will end this war you're more deluded than i thought. And until we see Osama holding up a current newspaper I'll have to conclude that he's assumed room temperature. If you don't believe just ask your loony socialist friends in France.

reply

Nobody ever said catching Osama would end anything. Nor will the hundreds of thousands of troops Bush sends and the billions of dollars in taxpayer money, will end Islamic Fundamentalism. You are deluded.

The fact they cannot find and apprehend Osama bin Laden is simply just one more example of the complete lack of competitence on the part of our government to do anyhing right or with any measure of success. Just one example, in additon to the complete disregard for our returning soldiers and all the other fiascos that Bush & Co. and managed to perputrate while in office.

Assuming anyone has "loony socialist friends in France" is just another example of casting innuendo and making false statements to create a smoke screen to hide behind the fact that the policies and narrow ideology guiding this nation at war have failed miserably.

reply

When we see protesters wanting us to leave then we'll leave but the Iraqi's have seen what life is like in Iran and they don't want any part of it. And if I was a liberal I wouldn't want to admit it either.

reply

Another thing that I should point out is that I made no mention of "liberals" as people, in either my original post or my first reply.

But if you want to know the truth about the future, you have to look at the past. And in the past, It was hotly debated in 1943 that America was losing to Germany, Japan, and the whole of Europe and Asia that the Allied forces largely destroyed. Turns out we went to rebuild the world we bombed to hell and back.

Let me ask you this...is it better to have done nothing? To have not fought the Islamic terrorist networks that are indeed springing up still? If you knew the world THEY envisioned for this country, I don't know what your answer would be. Let's just say there would be no such thing as IMDb, because things like movies are outlawed.

As far as the "constitutional" argument (Good GOD, I'm sick of hearing about this)...if you read the news, you will see that, at almost every turn, the government has been stopped by the high court when it goes against the protection of constitutional power. The only concret example of abuse would be the PATRIOT Act, which the next Democratic president will not only not overturn, but give more power to. After all, it was our friend Bill Clinton who came up with both the PATRIOT Act (known as the Defense of Freedom Act, same year as the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996), and the first president to put in writing the plan to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, in 1998.

This is also a simple fact, but one that I can actually back up with other simple facts.

And I guess I'm still simple-minded.

Why aren't you paying attention to Diebold instead of Iraq, anyway?

reply

I don't think anyone would have done nothing in response to Islamic terrorism or the bombing of Pearl Harbor but clearly, the wrong thing to do it act like idiots and incompetitent fools, as the Bush administration has done, and further incite terrorist cells all over the world. It is not a liberal stance to be pro-American and stand up for the liberities and human rights this country stands for in the world. We are not safer as a nation today, mainly because of incompetitent leadership that has failed to route out the terrorists while at the same time inflaming the enemy and aiding their recruitment.

Clearly, the worst thing you can do is start violating all the rules of humane threatment and basic rights because that is exactly what the terrrorists want American leadership to do. If you act like tryanist dictators would act by abusing prisoners and holding people in secret prisons and violating all the basic values of the American constitution than you've destroyed our moral authority in the world. Plainly, the most misguided and foolish reaction is to suspend and ammend our laws that protect freedom and government intrusion into the life of its citizens. Obviously, if we redefine the rules to allow abuse of government and military authority all around the world than we cannot expect anyone, friend or foe, to treat American in foreign lands and our soldiers with respect under law or treaty.

It really is too bad if you don't want to hear about it and be reminded of the values of a liberal democracy that is the foundation stone of our country and the American experiment. We are in big trouble if our citizens fail to unhold the American values we've fought hard to protect all through the generations of our ancestors on this soil.

reply

And for liberals slamming a conservative administration is being even handed.

reply

You don't know much about our founding fathers which is typical leftest like you. Any one who is taking up arms with out wearing a uniform is considered a spy which there was spy's during our Revolution. And you know what happend to them? They were Tried and then Executed. So Gitmo could be emptied out and Franklen would agree with Bush 100% just like most rational americans.

reply

Leftist, liberal, democrat. Jesus, can't you come up with a better way of describing those who don't agree with you? Couldn't it be remotely possible that not everyone who disagrees with this war or the current administrations agenda is a liberal?

In fact, there is a LARGE contingency of moderate republicans who realize what a quagmire we've gotten ourselves into. Get over your black and white politics of this war and look at the human cost on both sides.

And before you try and justify the war as just by saying that inaction would been worse remember that pretty much everybody was in agreement with going into Afghanistan which was completely justified.

Remember that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 no matter how much Bush wants it to and that unjust occupation and murder of civilians will only lead to hate and more terrorism.

Nothing would make me want to kill more than another country killing my people and bombing my homes. If you believe we are "safer" I've got a bridge to sell you.

Oh, ironically you mispelled Franklin. So much about knowing our founding fathers. :/

reply

They're aren't many moderate republicans left thank the great maker for that.And I suppose we should let Saddam out of jail then you think he would help us or hinder our war on Islamo Fascists because your pascifism isn't playing very well with the american public.

reply

you can try and cram all the words into my mouth you want but anyone can see that you are obviously a neo-con nutjob.

reply

Neo-con, Republican, nutjob. Can't you come up with any other words for someone who disagrees with the Rodney King philosophy of life?

reply

Its not about getting along, its aboutjustice. The iraq war had nothing to do with al-qaeda or the war on terror. You love to assume that those who oppose the iraq war oppose all war. I oppose illegal occupations that are killing our men and women and wasting our resources when we could be spending that money on hunting the actual terrorists.

The iraq war has no purpose and there will be no resolution. A govt cannot impose its system of govt on a people. It has to come from the people themselves. They have to want the change. America is doing nothing more than destroying what little reputation we had left and it obvious you don't care but I value what kind of opinion the world has about my country and its people. The iraq occupation is hurting us. The war in afghanistan isn't. Why is that? Because one is justified while the other isn't. You can certainly see that.

reply

Boy your really screwed up I think we did a pretty good job of imposing our way of life on JAPAN. And the people of Iraq want us there that's all that matters not the French not Kofi Annan and not College professors.

reply

If you go to Japan you'll see that the way people live in Japan is very Japanese for lack of a better term. My wife is Japanese and I lived in Fukuoka, Kyushu for over a year and while there are American influences in pop culture the way of life is certainly not American. The monarchy devolved the way many monarchies did in the 20th century as diplomacy changed worldwide. America helped rebuild a country it destroyed but the Japanese widely welcomed out help. They knew that they were in the wrong and they were humbled. This is where Iraq, and Vietnam for that matter differ. Iraq did not attack us and neither did Vietnam. America was the aggressor, the world police.

You think the Iraqis want us in their country? You think they are enjoying their 3 hours of power a day, constant suicide bombings, a skyrocketing mortality rate, and gas shortages? Those rose colored glasses you're wearing must be nice. I could only imagine the blind optomism you have.


An article from 2 days ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

Most Iraqis favor immediate US pullout.

I can see your response now, "AND LET THE TERRORISTS WIN?!?!", "THE COUNTRY WILL TURN INTO A CIVIL WAR!!!". The country is in a civil war, and it will only get worse. Staying the course only prolong the suffering and cost more American lives and money in the process, not counting the thousands of Iraqis who are dying as we maintain this gruesome death march.

Oh, and lets hear your predictable cry that the washington post is a "Liberal commie" paper. You republicans make me sick and every day longer the Bush stays in office is a day I smile because I know that the eventual turn around will be against you idiots. Most Americans are tired of the republican led regime. There will be a shift and it will be for the benefit of the world.

I am done responding to your idiots. Get over yourselves and look beyond your front porch. There is a whole world out there and how our country treats it matters.

reply

Doctorfurby is totally blind, as well as deaf, and will never listen to anyone in order to keep his deadly ideology hell-bent on world domination. If you follow the extremist neo-con rational imperative, America will have to continue to invade and conquer every country in the world to enforce its extreme form of neo-conservative government on other people and cultures.

reply

When I said impose our will and I will type slowly so you'll understand. Make them a democrasy and the last time I checked it still is. And that's what every loyal American should want a freedom loving Democrasy in the heart of the Middle east. And I like to compare Iraq to what was going on in Northern Ireland and not many people would call that a civil war. Your just trying to scare people into voting for you commie libs the same thing you democrats have been saying about George the Liberator Bush the last 6 years that the whole world doesn't like us boo hoo hoo. And I have some more bad news for you an American Loving Frenchman might become the new Prime Minister of France I hope you have a lot of depends in your bathroom cause you're going to need them.

reply

Doctorfurby, you bigoted bashmouth idiot, the extent of your ignornace is astonishing. Jacques Chirac, who has been the President of France since 1995, is a ultra-conservative, laissez-faire, pro-American politician. He was the "American Loving Frenchman" until George Bush came along and completely destroyed America's alliances and turned the world and French against us.

Little do you know, since it isn't likely you know anyone or have friends abroad, that America and Americans are liked almost everywhere in the world. We as people are admired. But George Bush and his exapnisonistic and militaristic policies and actions are not respected and he is properly understood as a shallow, ignorant and arrogant cowboy.

And it is very telling that you have no idea how to spell Democracy. You can't appreciate and advocate for Democracy if you don't know how to spell it.

reply

Additionally, you cannot go around the world invading sovereign countries, bombing their cities and torturing their citizens in secret prisons and say you are imposing Democracy. That is a complete hyprocracy. Democracy must rise from the will of the people, not from the blunt end of a gun or the explosive destruction of a laser guided missile.

Not only are you incapable of spelling Democracy, you are also incapable of understanding the concept.

reply

Just goes to show you how much of a idiot you are if you think Chirac is a conservative. But it is kind of ironic that you think you can't bring democracy to a country through a barell of a gun. What to do think we did in Japan and Germany but I guess you are one of the new Democrats the Cut and Run variety.
But don't worry their won't be to many of any kind of Democrats in the near future at the rate you guys are aborting your selves.

reply

doctorfurby is GEORGE W. BUSH! Only these comments could emerge from the demented mind of our Commander and Chief Dubyah!

You gave yourself away W, with the "you guys are aborting your selves" and, of course, the abundantly evident inability to spell, speak intelligently, and articulate any coherant concept other than lies, hatred and contempt.

reply

The truth hurts doesn't it and if I was George Bush I wouldn't be pussy footing around with collateral damage. I'd get in and get out and let alah sort them out but he's been watching CNN and reading the New York times and listening to his moderate wife which has been getting him in trouble.

reply

Dude, as someone who thinks we should all break our left-turn signals...please learn how to type using, at the very least, semi-proper grammar. Use internet grammar. Use punctuation. Hell, misspell a couple of words (except "your" for "you're," which you're a big fan of).

I'm telling you this as a favor, because I'm pretty sure we're on the same page. And, I'd at least like the people you're trying to speak with to be able to read what you write without making fun of it. I'm serious, doc. If they aren't going to listen, at least don't give them the "idiot" argument they like to use against conservatives every day.

As long as you are going to type slowly, type correctly.

reply

This is not, has never been and probably cannot be a rational argument.

Those of the extremist conservative view, logically try to argue that the only way to victory is to bomb them back into the stone age. The Bush/Cheney doctrine and, truth be told, this militaristic approach is not working and will never work as a strategic course to victory. And because it is not working, the people with this view must seek scapegroats such as liberal Democrats, Commies, *beep* John McCain, the New York Times or George's moderate first-lady Laura who keeps him from doing the principle thing you all desperately want and launch nuclear Armageddon. You are a party of one trying to enforce ideological purity and world-wide superiority. This is not the primary urge of the American people. We are not demigods hell-bent on nuclear destruction and killing all over the planet as you would like us to be in order to achieve these ends.

Bombing people back into the stone age does not produce Democracy and will never bring a solution to world conflict.

reply

I wish we would bomb them back to the stone age then this war on terror would be over just like the war against Nazism 50 years ago.

reply

Well "doctorfurby" I really wish you'd be bombed back to the stone age, I'm quite sure that then, just like the iraqis, you will trully be able to appreciate the virtues of democracy.

reply

Name a war where the United States did not illegally occupy a sovereign country that did not attack them.

Seriously. Look it up. If you can find ONE WAR that matches that criteria, I will give you a shiny Pocahontas dollar.

And, you think the war in Afghanistan isn't hurting us, injuring our view among people in that region and around the world? Are you on opium?

So yeah, it IS about getting along, about finding some simple answer that will cure everything. Well, it won't work, and you KNOW it won't. Please find a different argument.

reply

Well if I remember correctly the only reason we attacked Afghanistan was because they wouldn't hand over UBL and a lot of Democrats supported it. And how bout Panama and I'm sure a lot of Panamanians are glad we did.

reply

Look at what dude above was saying.

reply

What's your definiton of Illegally occupy?

reply

Just get out of the way, man.

reply

Langley, you lecture doctorfurby for his incompetence in using the English language and I would agree that it deservidly casts a bad light on conservatives. However, you are just as guilty and no doubt it stems from you shallow thinking on the tough issues facing the nation. George Bush is a simple-minded idiot and it is causing this nation big, big problems. His only hope, and your hope too, is that might will make right.

But let's take your presumptive and valued loaded proposition:

"Name a war where the United States did not illegally occupy a sovereign country that did not attack them."

Indeed, there are a couple of problems with the question itself. First, there is a double negative that produces a kind of circular puzzling logic "did not illegally occupy" AND "did not attack them." Yes, it does very much depend on how you define "illegally occupy." For instance, let's look at Vietnam. Did we illegally occupy Vietnam? We were invited into the country as allies by the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) government from the South and while many consider Vietnam a "proxy war" we were invited in (and did not invade or illegally occupy) nor did either side in this civil war actually attack America.

In many recent conflicts in Northern Africa and eastern Europe, America attacked and bombed targets but didn't actually invade or occupy, again depending on how you define occupy. We invaded both Italy in and France in 1944 to defeat German's who occupied those countries. Our victories on those soils aided existing national movements for liberation.

The situation in Iraq is completely unique from all these others. America was not attacked by Iraq or Sadaam Hussein. As bad a man as he was/is there was no direct provocation for America to invade the country or any more than say two dozen other leaders of countries around the world we consider to be unfriendly or regular violators of human rights and the dignities of mankind.

And, the invasion of Iraq was NOT based on poor inelligence as many would like us to believe. The invasion was based on a lie and the Bush Administratrion claims it was faulty intelligence to cover their lies to the American people and the rest of the world. Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our countries leaders were told not only by U.N Inspectors like Scott Ritter (as one example) but also numerous other U.S. observers and our own miliary intelligence on the ground in the Southern and Northern fly zones. The top five reasons Bush gave in his State of the Union address for invading Iraq were all false and he knew they were false as he spoke them. No one should have been deceived, least of all France, Germany and other natural allies of America.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq it was the best possible solution for Iran and al-Queda because it was exactly the result ther radical Islamists were trying to provoke. Hussein was no friend of Iran, in fact, a dire enemy. And, Hussein was no friend to Osama bin Laden either. However, by invading Iraq, Bush succeeded in realigning the entire region and creating an inflamed and serious enemy to our interests and allies.

And Bush along with his neo-con extremist supporters are still too stupid to realize how they were duped into this travesty.

But I am not saying anything that isn't already established by former employees of the Bush Administration and many books that have been written on the topic. This is all very familiar public information and you should read more, Langley and inform yourself. Afterall, it is our duty as American citizens to be informed about the actions of our government. It is our obligation in a democracy. In America, the government works and reports to it citizens and we must be a constant observer and critical evaluator of their missteps and poor judgments. It is the only way the nation will remain a leader in the world.

reply

Thanks for picking apart my sentence! You still are incorrect in your answers and assumptions! Wow, I used a double-negative! Did you still understand the question? I did, because it still made sense! Wow! I must be an idiot! Good job, guy!

Vietnam was, in the eyes of many, many people in the press and citizenry, an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. Using the logic you presented, we were also invited to Iraq by exiled government members. We were never attacked by Vietnam. We DID invade the country at the behest of the anti-communist factions in Southern Vietnam. Since we were invited, as we were in Iraq, I suppose neither constitute an illegal occupation.

How quickly did you think we would be out of Iraq? To take from something you said, there are several other unfriendly violators of human rights in the world that, according to your logic, we should dispose of. How quickly should we enter and exit these countries to do so?

If your argument is to simply insult me by telling me to "read more," what would you have me read, and what do you assume I'm not reading? I can tell you now that I'm reading "State Of Denial." We ARE a constant evaluator. What if our evaluations are completely baseless and incorrect, and what if the truth lies in between?

War is not a knock on the door, asking "please." It is bombing, it is death, it is destruction, and the sooner we are able to rid ourselves of it, the better off we will be. But we cannot throw up white flags in the face of radical Islamism in the world, nor can we do so in the face of brutality. Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly, after September 11, attempting to connect with terrorists--not Bin Laden directly, but his associates who were in the country--and we did the right and justified thing by getting rid of him.

If this war were illegal, wouldn't a coalition of armies around the world--members of the United Nations, NATO, and other world leagues--
have united to attack the US, or at least prevent us from doing something...oh, I don't know...ILLEGAL? For an invasion to be illegal, there has to be a law against what we did. There is NOT, as we did not break international laws or treaties.

Oh wait, Robb--am I reading the wrong books?

reply

I suppose than France,Germany and Brittish Governments also lied about weapons of mass destruction oh and the UN. Saddam did use WMD's in the past against Iran and the Kurds if I'm not mistaken. And the Democrats who wanted a vote on the war saw the same intel and voted for war. And all the former Bush officials were forced out of their jobs so they maybe just maybe have an axe to grind.

reply

No, Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. He knew there were no weapons in Iraq based on our own military and the U.N. Inspectors on the ground in Iraq. He lied to Congress, the American people and our allies. They didn't lie to him as you would like us to believe.

France, German and the U.N. did not support the American invasion of Iraq precisely for this reason among others including another lie Bush told saying there was a link between Osama and Saddam. That wasn't faulty intelligence, it was plain and simple lying. Many people in our country and around the world pointed out these lies at the time. These are not shocking new revelations. In fact, Bush likes now to refute information that comes out in reports about their incompetitience by simply saying, this is old news. Yeah, it is old news that the Republicans are totally incompetitent, wasteful with billions in taxpayer dollars and corrupt. And let's not even start with what they do with House Pages.

And now there is a book out "War By Other Means" by a Republican Deputy Attorney General who served in the Bush Administration that asserts justice and the presumption of innocence is too costly for America to enedure. John Yoo believes that not only should we and can we continue to hold foreigners in secret prisons without the right to a trial, right to legal representation and to see the charges against them -- he thinks its okay to start using the same apprehension and detention practices with American citizens. He believes that we ought to be able to hold and convict American citizens without showing them charges against them, just like they do in secret prisons overseas.

And he wasn't even forced out of the administration so, no, you are again incorrect that these are simply former Bushies with axes to grind. Afterall, he says, no system is perfect so it is okay to illegally imprison people in these times -- its a price we have to pay. This is how dictators and despots think. This is what they do in China and other totalitarian system to people they conisder enemies of the state. This is how they justify their abuse of power before citizens. It is amazing this thinking and abuse of absolute power is coming to the forefront here in America.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

reply

kjetland-1, the number of assumptions you made about this film is astounding. You obviously haven't seen it, and yet to see fit to attack it.

First, this is not a "movie" - it is a documentary. There is a big difference. Second, it was not made in Hollywood - it is an independent feature.

So right there, the very basis of your argument is wrong.

Also, this has NOTHING to do with being conservative or liberal, pro or anti-war. You would know that if you actually watched the film.

The fact that our government is not treating the Iraq vets properly is indisputable. Again, that fact is not liberal, it is not conservative; it just is.

I would suggest that the next time you "review" a film, you actually take the time to watch it. You just embarrassed yourself mightily, and made yourself look foolish, with your comments about this one.

reply

A documentary is a type of movie. Movie is short for "moving picture."

For the love of everything good in this world, can we please get someone in here who will stop arguing semantics as if that gives their weak argument the necessary weight it needed to become stronger? It does not work.

reply