At the end of the movie the guy decides to serve another tour in Iraq. Now I know it is *beep* that he has to but you know what at least he isn't a pussy and actually steps up instead of running away.
shareI think you'll find that most liberals (at least the ones with sense), greatly appreciate soldiers and greatly oppose the war.
So that doesn't piss me off, it makes me sad for the character, but grateful that we have soldiers who are willing to do multiple tours so Bush doesn't decide to reinstate the draft.
http://stanfordwank.livejournal.com
Snark: it's what's for dinner.
mean green just owned carcrafter7
shareJust what we need, another pre-teen coming in and announcing that someone was "owned". What would be nice, is if you "owned" up and try to formulate intelligent responses instead of chiming in with forum high-fives.
Did I just "own" you? I hope not, because I don't want to foot the bills.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
So you jump on the guy who "forum high fives", but say nothing of the OP who started a new thread just to say that the guy wasn't a pussy. Intelligence or lack thereof had no bearing on your response; It was just who you agreed with.
Any useful idea about the future should sound ridiculous.
I didn't say anything about "agreeing" with the OP, I commented on the "forum high five" which is useless and absurd.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
at least he didnt come on and announce someone was "pwned"
shareNor did he come in and say someone was "qwned" or "rwned" or "swned"... thank god for small miracles.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
americans are such pussies nowadays wont even die in iraq for... iraqi freedom? stop terrorism? idk one of those things
hell no i dont want to die to stop a terrorist or to give an iraqi freedom thats dumb screw that hey why dont u go and die to save the life of like maybe 50 ppl... who youve never met btw heh good luck
yea right
anonymouse007 on Wed Feb 20 2008 19:37:29
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mean green just owned carcrafter7
Wow son, you REALLY need to go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of 'owned'....
Enter the 21st century . . the dictionaries have not totally kept up . . .owned it was.
shareFor the record - and I know this isn't the intent of the post, but still - even if Bush wanted to reinstate the draft, it wouldn't happen (and certainly not in the remaining 11 months he has in office). It would have to pass through Congress and I can't see the government reinstating something that was so widely hated.
(I could be wrong, but the point I really wanted to make was that there wouldn't be enough time left anyway to do so.)
To go off on a tangent that really doesn't have much to do with your post, but more with the other posts I've seen hanging around here, I think a lot of people forget that the President isn't in complete control. He can't simply do what he wants and he must adhere to the same - if not more - laws that the rest of us do. Yes, Bush did "begin" the War in Iraq - but Congress agreed to it. The way the government is set up is to keep from another king like George III during the Revolution, so the idea is that no single person, party, or branch has complete power over the country.
People like to blame Bush for something that a 2/3 majority of Congress agreed to as well. It just... kind of bothers me.
Now then, the whole idea that an entire political party will hate this movie is just wrong. I'm sure there are plenty of "liberals" who support the troops, and probably even some who support the War, as well as conservatives who don't. It's personal opinion.
Finally a person of intelligence. A lot of people think that the President runs this country. He only runs whatever the Congress allows him to.
Of course he does have the power of VETO, and in very rare occasions "Executive Decision", but even that has to be approved by the Joint Chiefs.
I am not a fan of war, but all these "humanitarians" out there need to wake up and realize that "HUGS" don't always solve the problem. Sometimes we need to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.
Regards,
lvc31
I would rather have my brothers and sisters over there that volunteered to be in the Army doing their 4th, 5th and 6th tours, than have Bush institute a draft and then I've got the guy who wasn't smart enough to work the register at burger king as my machine gunner.
My biggest gripe now is how the Liberals are using this as a political platform to get elected. They should have done a full court press the whole time, and not waited until a ballot season to decide that we lost enough Soldiers and Servicemembers. The republicans can impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob in the oval office, but the Dems cannot get their feces organized enough to corner our President?
If Obama or Queen Clinton win, and they don't get people home as soon as they promised, I will be the first one to sign the impeachment petition
I'll NEVER if I live to be a THOUSAND understand this "label" stuff! "Liberals","conservatives",etc. But a lot of people are into it. IMHO it sounds like this should be 1984 and a new John Hughes movie with girls with puffy hair and dudes with polo shirts with their collars flipped up. "Jocks" and "dweebs","libtards" and "conservatives"...wow.BTW not directing this at you Mean Green,just happend to post here,lol!
Panaluv
Thank you, EXPLICITSOUL, for injecting some sense into this long running thread.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
I'm actually a lot more confident in the movie now that I know the ending. It's much better than him running away to Canada.
share[deleted]
Soldiers, at the very least, should have the right not to participate in illegal wars.
share[deleted]
Actually, you miss my point but you make a fairly inaccurate one in response.
"Your country......no matter which country you live in....has every right to send you to war whether you like it or not"
This was precisely the argument that the United States countered all throughout the Cold War, when they referred to the citizens within the borders of communist countries as "captive nations". According to official US policy, then, communist countries not only did not have the right to a standing army fighting for them, but they did not even have the right to exist. Furthermore, countries do not have rights - the people within them do.
[deleted]
"That is just a lot of circular nonsense"
Explain to me precisely how it is circular, and then I'll be happy to respond to such allegations. Until you do that, though, we can just assume that you are rather weakly avoiding the points that I am actually making.
"Why not just admit the real basis behind your argument?"
I made the "real basis" behind my argument quite clear before you persistently attempted to derail my point by constructing another argument for me.
"You have no character, no sense of duty, you think the world revolves around you and your wants, and you are a coward."
This is merely your usual tactic of attacking my character, which you don't even know, because you have no counter-argument nor any evidence to back up the remarks that you occasionally provide. The one time you did provide evidence to claim that Bush's tax cuts were not economically unfair, you presented outdated information. I called you on it and you have been resorting to these rather petty attacks ever since.
Benji-The_Dog, you are obviously an idiot. No one would have known this, if you had kept your mouth closed.
You resort to personal attacks as your defense, ha
[deleted]
"I have nothing to defend. Just making a statement of fact."
Alright, then, let's go through your facts.
"Oh really? And who decides which wars they get to decide not to participate in? You? Them?"
You begin with four sentences that are all questions. Questions obviously cannot be facts, so we can dismiss that immediately.
"Honestly, that is a stupid comment you made"
Since this is purely opinion, this cannot be considered fact unless you are in grade three or below, which I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not.
"Your country......no matter which country you live in....has every right to send you to war whether you like it or not. Every country in the world reserves this right"
This is the one point that you made, which I already dealt with. It is not factual and is actually based on hypocrisy and faulty logic.
"Get a clue, dude"
Again, this is an authorization, not a fact unless you consider a stop sign to be a fact.
I am also curious what you would have to say about one of your own comments from a previous debate between yourself and me. In reference to Hugo Chavez, you predicted, "I would not be surprised if he simply decides to stay [in power] and uses the army to back himself up". I guess, my question to you, would be, if the army in Venezuela refused to fight to keep an unelected figure in power, should they be prosecuted and imprisoned? Because according to your logic that you have presented thus far, they should. I would argue the converse. But I'm curious how you would put it in your own words.
shareA while back there was an Asian officer in the marines or army, and he decided that the war was against his conciosence, so he like quit.
shareI'd like to point out the blatant use of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy here -- you're attacking the person, not the argument. "You argument has no merit because you are a coward" is a textbook logical fallacy. I happen to be agreeing that soldiers should have the right not to fight in illegal wars (which this absolutely is. There's is absolutely no legal basis for the war and no way you can say it is, in fact, legal).
share[deleted]
It totally sucks that soldiers have to go to war. Even wars that suck and they completely disagree with. But um.. Isn't that partially what they signed up for? Even the ones from small towns with no hope and no money and a military career is the only thing that can save them from rotting in a town full of meth and endless reminders of the promise of yesterday?
I mean, clearly, nobody goes to war to kill people.. That's not why.. It's for.. Something else. And when that something else isn't made apparent, it's a little more difficult, but you know.
You can't sign up in the military and not realize, "Dude. I might have to kill people. And be at war for like, a long time. Because not a lot of people want to be soldiers. Because killing people and being at war for a long time? Sort of sucks."
I don't know. I clearly don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not in the military and I have no real life experience with it.. But it seems like when you join the military at a time when the country is at war you sort of figure out you're probably going to end up being at war. Possibly more than once.
Maybe I am naive here. Or insensitive. I don't really understand the way the military works, but.. You know.
http://stanfordwank.livejournal.com
Snark: it's what's for dinner.
Ad Hominem AGAIN! Wow, you seem to like that one, Benji. ;) It also assumes something that isn't true, which is related to Hypothesis Contrary To Fact -- I.E. that I would ever be in the military in the first place, and that if somehow I were, I would desert -- both untrue.
I would refute your argument, except...you didn't make one.
[deleted]
"My point is pretty simple, and it is not an attack: try using your line of 'logic' in a court of law during a desertion case and see how far it will get you. It is a perfectly reasonable assertion. Do you think 'I have the right to desert' would pass muster in a court martial? Honestly.....I am curious."
Your point was already in embedded in our point, which you understand perfectly well. Nobody has argued that a soldier currently has the right not to fight in an illegal war. Our point is that they should and the problem is with the fact that such an example above would not "pass muster in a court martial". Consequently, your hypothetical example that you provide is meaningless. You know the answer, we know the answer, and nothing in what we have said has ever indicated otherwise. This is just merely another attempt on your part to construct a wholly different argument that you are capable of arguing against. Now that I have responded to your curiosity, will you respond to your own Chavez point that I provided above?
Furthermore, though, as noted above, military personnel can file for conscentious objector status and this can "pass muster" as you put it. So, this is not some sort of impossibility that we are discussing here.
Conscientious objector is still seriously sketchy. They usually send you anyway, just without a gun, and if you signed up of your own free will (as in you weren't drafted), well, if you objected to the war you shouldn't have signed up (this is what the military will say, not me).
There are religions that, if you tell the army you are, they try to avoid sending you to front line combat (I only know about this because I'm one of them). Religions that are anti-violence and believe only in peace and that it's never justifiable to kill anyone or anything are generally what we're talking about here -- this covers most Eastern and Pagan religions. However, you can tell the army it's okay to send you to front line combat and they'll ignore it.
These are your only real options if you're in the army and at war.
Okay, then make your point without saying "Oh, send us a letter from prison telling us how your point works out!" I'm not saying that I would argue this in a court of law, because I know I'd lose. I'm not saying it's what's legal. I'm saying it's what *should* be legal.
A soldier has an obligation to disobey an illegal or immoral order. Why shouldn't they have the same obligation to desert an illegal war?
[deleted]
Okay, just to address the aggressive stupidity here, because it invalidates the rest of it at least in this context: Congress didn't declare war! Bush asked, THEY SAID NO, he went anyway! I am...ninety percent sure that I've said it to you before, and even if I haven't, well, you should know it anyway if you're trying to have a sane debate about war.
Bush also asked the U.N. They told him in no uncertain terms, DO NOT INVADE IRAQ. He did so anyway, and rather promptly.
I'm trying to think of another possible way to declare war. Not coming up with one. Got any for me, Benji? And if so, did Bush follow the procedure?
[deleted]
CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE WAR OMG. Are you even listening (reading)? At all?
Tell you what. If Congress authorized it, find me the Declaration of War. Find me a copy of it online, or even an article that talks about it. Try googling "Congress war authorization." Although that might get you things like the Cold war, so if that doesn't work add "iraq" on the end. Hell, or "afghanistan." Did anyone notice how for a few months Afghanistan were the terrorists and we totally had to kill Afghanistan, then ALL OF A SUDDEN it was all Iraq's fault?
"Try telling that to the judge after you desert. Send a letter from prison to let us know how it worked out."
I really don't follow your argument here. Perhaps you can elaborate further. If you were looking at a dictatorship where people are imprisoned for speaking their minds, do you give them the same flippant response for trying to achieve basic rights?
1. Congress did authorize this war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
2. The UN is not a legal body. Read: their permission is not required for any action taken by a sovereign state. In addition, detailed scrutiny of the security council vote in question makes it clear that America was not the only nation at the table acting out of blatant self interest.
3. Illegal implies legality, and legality is a function of either government or intergovernmental agreement. If that is your concept of how the UN works, and what its function is in our world, you are mistaken.
I don't accept a wikipedia link as a reliable source, because anyone can change it. Find me a CNN article or the official resolution.
shareThe links to the resolution are contained in that Wiki article.
I love how some people immediately dismiss Wiki articles because somebody once told them it was the cool thing to do. Then, they immediately demand outside sources that were listed in the Wiki article themselves.
WIkipedia is a great tool. Of course you have to be wary of its ability to be edited from unqualified sources, but as a basis for research, a well written and properly cited Wiki article is a good springboard.
PDF of the resolution (very first source cited on Wiki):
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Library of Congress copy of House Joint Resolution 114 (second source cited):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR:
Roll call of the vote (third and fourth sources cited) :
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
Wow, that was difficult.
Good call on the poster above. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq is up to you. There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose it. Calling it illegal, however, is not.
“Congress did authorize this war…The UN is not a legal body. Read: their permission is not required for any action taken by a sovereign state. In addition, detailed scrutiny of the security council vote in question makes it clear that America was not the only nation at the table acting out of blatant self interest.”
Sorry - no body of international law or expert on the subject would argue that a war becomes legal if your own government approves of it. In fact, the United States offically refers to all other opposing countries who carry out international war crimes as being "rogue states" or "rogue nations". Clearly by US definition, international law applies only to the people we oppose but not to ourselves. I urge you to find in print, an open declaration from anyone who supported the US invasion of Iraq simultaneously supporting a wide scale bombing of Washington from any country whose government favored the idea. In fact, if we are to avoid total hypocrisy, you'd outright have to support such a position. Anyone who is not interested in seeing the annihilation of the planet, however will take the position of international law. Furthermore, the United States is a leading signatory of the United Nations Charter, as well as being the leading actor in Security Council and General Assembly resolutions for the past 30 years. Anybody who signed the Charter is bound to its articles, which explicitly note that a state has the right to use force against another state without authorization only under the condition of self-defense. The United States takes this very seriously, and has in the past vigorously defended the UN position but again, only when it serves their interest. So, for example, the US widely supported the General Assembly resolutions declaring the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to be illegal and for good reason. Again, unless we want to be true hypocrites, we will take the word of the chief US prosecutor Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson who argued at the Nuremberg Trials that the conclusions must be applied to all countries including our own – namely, the conclusion that the invasion of another country was “the supreme international crime”.
Cafe-
you mistake my point. My post in no way supports the choice to go to war, it merely points out that calling any action undertaken by a soverign state "illegal" is at best a misnomer.
However, if you want to discuss the UN I am happy to do so. The reality is that the UN is a fiction that effectively illegitemized itself within 5 years of its inception.
Any of the experts you mentioned would surely tell you that your very technically correct analysis of the chartered powers of the United Nations is, in practice, just not the way it works, or has ever worked. On their best day the UN is a legitimizing cover for US military action (Belgrade), On their worst day they are an impediment to human justice(Kigali). Asking them for permission to commit an international act of territorial agression is like asking the lunch lady for permission to shoot a cop.
If you don't believe me, you can come visit me here in Colombo, Sri Lanka where I get to watch them do nothing (very, very, expensive nothing) each and every day.
“you mistake my point. My post in no way supports the choice to go to war, it merely points out that calling any action undertaken by a soverign state "illegal" is at best a misnomer”
I suggest checking my post, because I directly responded to one of your points, which I quoted. Again, you noted that “The UN is not a legal body”. This is quite simply false, as I explained. I repeat, those who signed the UN Charter have agreed that they are bound to its articles. The United States has noted repeatedly that any state, which is not bound to these agreements, will be officially considered “rogue states”. According to the United States, then, permission must be granted by the UN before an invasion, if it is to be considered legal or legitimate.
“However, if you want to discuss the UN I am happy to do so. The reality is that the UN is a fiction that effectively illegitemized itself within 5 years of its inception”
Perhaps, then, you could provide the official documents showing how the US is no longer bound to the UN articles, as per the agreement. If no such documents exist, then all this talk about how they “effectively illegitemized (sic) themselves” is purely opinion and has no bearing on reality.
“Any of the experts you mentioned would surely tell you that your very technically correct analysis of the chartered powers of the United Nations is, in practice, just not the way it works, or has ever worked. On their best day the UN is a legitimizing cover for US military action (Belgrade), On their worst day they are an impediment to human justice (Kigali)”
Absolutely there are significant problems with the UN. The United States for example has essentially been controlling the UN for several decades with their abuse of the veto, as the Soviet Union did before them. I’m not sure how this follows that the UN must be dismantled or that their articles created to prevent wars are unnecessary. On the contrary, given the nature of states as tools of violence (a nature which has thankfully subsided significantly since WWII, but still exists in a dangerous fashion nevertheless), a standard set for all states to observe regarding international war crimes is probably required for the outright survival of the species. In fact, since the creation of the UN, we have virtually seen the death of the “nation state” in Europe, which was leading towards total annihilation. The kind of rampant imperialism, which outright destroyed civilizations to the point where they disappeared completely just does not exist now. So I think it is a kind of madness to suggest that an international body set up with an official agreement on war crimes is somehow a bad thing. Do the significant problems with the UN actually suggest to you that we should do away with these historic agreements that have had genuine success? Certainly getting rid of the veto would be an enormous help, and I would be on board with that. But suggesting that this somehow follows that the UN is illegitimate is illogical and, in my opinion, dangerous. And if the UN is a “cover for US military action” or “an impediment to human justice”, then I think this reveals a much larger problem associated with state power. If anything the states that take “military action” or create massive human rights violations should be given less power not more. But more power is precisely what you will give them if you dismantle the UN for problems that could easily be corrected. The mere fact that Congress authorization is given so often as proof that the Iraq invasion was legitimate shows how a world without the UN just leads to a rampant increase in violence, given that any state can easily grant itself permission to go and destroy another country.
"I suggest checking my post, because I directly responded to one of your points, which I quoted. Again, you noted that “The UN is not a legal body”. This is quite simply false, as I explained. I repeat, those who signed the UN Charter have agreed that they are bound to its articles"
what you describe here is not a legal body, but a treaty organization. They are different. One is a sovereign regulatory system, the other is a tacid agreement between sovereign powers. One is binding the other is not. Furthermore, nowhere in the UN charter is there a specific clause that says that security council members are subject to a floor vote for acts of agression.
"Perhaps, then, you could provide the official documents showing how the US is no longer bound to the UN articles, as per the agreement. If no such documents exist, then all this talk about how they “effectively illegitemized (sic) themselves” is purely opinion and has no bearing on reality. "
No offense, but you're in college aren't you?
The US is in no way bound by any such articles. What power do you imagine the UN has? The UN was lost as an international body the first time they sat idle and watched a border that they themselves created be violated. Here is a decent article on it:
http://www.looklex.com/e.o/fpalswar.htm
If you cannot police your own decisions, your legitimacy in making those decisions is moot. (without cops, what good are judges?)
"I think this reveals a much larger problem associated with state power."
What you are really talking about is sovereignty itself being an impediment to world peace. This, I agree with. However, I doubt either of us is about to talk anyone into a unified world government just because we think it is a good idea.
Just going to quickly respond to the points you make but I will avoid the personal shot that you took, because it doesn't merit a response. I'll leave it to the casual viewers to judge for themselves.
"what you describe here is not a legal body, but a treaty organization"
I'm describing both, which is the proper way to look at it. The British Encyclopedia, for example refers to a treaty as a "Contract or other written instrument binding two or more states under international law". The United Nations takes this seriously as well and note in their own documents that "The Articles of the Charter have the force of positive international law because the Charter is a treaty and therefore a legally binding document". I'm not sure whether you are establishing a semantics debate (which is worthless) or just saying that no one has or could have the authority to declare what is a legal international act and what is an illegal international act. If that's the case, then I suppose the natural consequence would be what was happening before the establishment of the UN, where foreign policy was dictated by the needs of the nation state - a particular ideology which, as most argued at the time, was leading towards the annihilation of the species. I guess we have a decision to make.
"The US is in no way bound by any such articles. What power do you imagine the UN has?"
Again, the US signed the Charter which stated explicitly that they are bound to its articles. If you could find me evidence that shows that they renounced their intentions at some point, I'd be happy to see it. My assumption is that what you really mean is that 'the US is bound to the articles in writing' (because you certainly couldn't argue otherwise), 'but really, come on, who is going to stop them from violating those articles?'. In that particular case, I would agree that the US is not "bound by any such articles" in the same sense that a man holding a knife to another man's throat when no one else is around is not bound by the law, which says that murder is illegal. But only in that sense is the US not bound to the articles - a difficult position to place one's self in.
"The UN was lost as an international body the first time they sat idle and watched a border that they themselves created be violated...If you cannot police your own decisions, your legitimacy in making those decisions is moot"
So what you are saying is that one has to be perfect in order to enforce decisions. So I assume that you believe that every police organization should be dismantled because they allow crimes to occur all the time? Because cops constantly see people speed, there should be no laws against speeding? That's one example, but it would carry through to the total dismantling of every police organization. Personally, I wouldn't think that to be such a bad thing - but certainly not on the grounds that because they can't stop every crime, they should not stop any crime - which is totally illogical, in my opinion.
"What you are really talking about is sovereignty itself being an impediment to world peace"
No, I'm not. I'm talking about "state power" which is different from "sovereignty". I think that if every country was allowed to democratically make its own decisions (and I'm including most Western countries here where democracy is severely curbed by a variety of different factors) there probably wouldn't be much need for a United Nations. Furthermore, a country that did have a direct-democracy system would be sovereign but there wouldn't be any kind of state power. So, I don't see "sovereignty" as an impediment to world peace. On the contrary, state power is an impediment, while direct-democracy would (I suspect) push us in the right direction.
As a liberal AND a veteran, the title of this thread pisses me off. Because I'm a liberal, I must be upset that he didn't flee to Mexico?
Yes, it's true. Liberals don't understand what brotherhood and loyalty are all about. We're a bunch of running-amok chaotics.
Another fine example of a conservative shooting off his mouth only to be revealed as a moron.
Thank you, columbusbuck. The OP thinks he has liberals pegged, but he (or she) is wrong. I am a liberal and I thought the ending was realistic and moving, and I still admired Brandon in his semi-defeat/newfound sense of purpose.
But, oh, I forgot I'm supposed to be anti-military and to hate America and be unhappy that he's going back because I don't want him killing any of my terrorist buddies. Damn, how come I don't know a single person who fits that description? I must be out of touch.
I am sorry...no self-respecting human being wants to die. Self-preservation is priority one....now there are some selfless people in the world (firefighters, police, soldiers in war) who overcome this desire to survive by sacrificing themselves for the greater good...I hold those people in very high regard and am very comfortable in proclaiming that i have not found a "greater good" to die for yet...It is not cowardice or lack of character or selfishness that make people insensitive to war victims or soldiers...it is the law of nature and the "jerks" do not think that dying for a culture who never asked to be liberated, etc. is good enough
and i am a big enough person to admit and accept that
The country is made up of its citizens. The government is there to make sure that things don't go out of hand. But yes, it was an illegal war. In fact, even now, we are still waiting for evidence of the dreaded "WMD's". We gained oil, territory, pushing our weight around to the world, establishment of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act, and not much else. What freedoms of ours were our soldiers protecting?
Our country has NO right to send anyone to a war, especially when the majority of the public oppose the war. People have the right to volunteer, but not to be forced into a draft, especially by the same people who won't let their own kids off to war. It's saddening to see how far our country has fallen since 1776. We're supposed to be a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. We're not supposed to have a standing military (except for the NAVY), except in times of war. Why we even have career politicians is beyond me...
Our country has this unhealthy obsession with war, even when it is not our battle to fight. We have to scare every other country because "We're the UNITED STATES!!!", and if we don't approve of you, coupled with the fact that another country may have nuclear weapons, we will intimidate and/or attack you. We need to solve our own problems before pushing our ideals upon everyone else.
Our politicians are supposed to be a figurehead, a spokesperson if you will, of their constituents. The same goes for the President. Yet, all of the above have lobbyists that want them to suit their needs and not those of the people, and we have those which use their position as a tool to accomplish their own ideals on what "they" think is right. If we are attacked, that is one thing, but if we invade a country, that is an entirely different ballgame.
"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connollyshare
Cafe Dreamco wrote: "Soldiers, at the very least, should have the right not to participate in illegal wars."
Actually, they not only have the right, but also the obligation. It's just that it may not necessarily be clear to a soldier whether a war is illegal or not.
If you know this for a fact, please put a spoiler warning on the topic title. Some people, you know, might not want to know how it ends before seeing it?
shareyour right, its totally being a pussy by not killing people in an unjust war.
shareI love how this thread has nothing to do with a crappy MTV movie but people's own political views.
Can we all agree to disagree and continue to talk about the movie? Mmmkay?
So you're suggesting that we should end a discussion on an important issue and, instead, talk about a movie that you call "crappy"?
shareNo, I just don't think that talking about it on a movie website, in a forum that is meant for reviewing and talking about the movie is totally on topic or relevant.
All MTV movies are crappy, try and name one that isn't. From what I have heard about this movie, the script is poorly written and most of the actors are sub par. So yes, I would call it a crappy movie.
Ladies and gentlemen. Don't feed the trolls. No matter what your opinions are on the war, the troops, or President Bush are, you will not change anyone's opinion. All it does it cause drama and silly arguments.
I came here to see if this movie was worth the 8 bucks to see it, not surprisingly it isn't.
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg
"No, I just don't think that talking about it on a movie website, in a forum that is meant for reviewing and talking about the movie is totally on topic or relevant"
Well, the topic that we are debating does not seem to be too far from the debate that is offered by the film itself. More importantly though, isn't encouraging discussion one of the purposes of art?
"All MTV movies are crappy, try and name one that isn't. From what I have heard about this movie, the script is poorly written and most of the actors are sub par. So yes, I would call it a crappy movie."
I wasn't questioning your criticism of the film.
"Ladies and gentlemen. Don't feed the trolls. No matter what your opinions are on the war, the troops, or President Bush are, you will not change anyone's opinion. All it does it cause drama and silly arguments."
That's absolutely untrue. In fact, great advances have been made under the current Administration that initially seemed unfathomable. The Iraqi democratic elections, for a prime example, was a strong victory for the Iraqi citizens over the US government who vetoed the proposal three times before they finally realized that the Iraqis weren't going to give up. That was an enormous victory for extremely improverished people against the world's greatest superpower. And these kinds of things happen, as long as one can mobilize support. One can easily pass off huge victories as "drama" and "silly" because we (particularly in the West) are conditioned to think that change is impossible. It's quite possible. It has been shown repeatedly to be possible, and no reasonable and rational person would disagree.
"I came here to see if this movie was worth the 8 bucks to see it"
Yep, and you'll probably find about 30 threads on this subject.
[deleted]
[deleted]
right on dlevb31, now cafedreamco can shut up.
sharepsirsh and delv , can both go sign up since your both are in favor of this war and that means that 2 less guys will have to go back a second or a 3rd term in iraq . , since you don't mind them going you shouldn't mine taking their place unless of course your both like cheney and bush who when given the opportunty to serve both ducked their obligation .
share[deleted]
both bush and cheney , had a chance to serve , cheney had 5 deferments , bush's father got his son into the national guard then he skipped out on his once a month commitment , so when you say most of citizens have no balls you start at the top and worked down , secondly man , I don't want you to get hurt or killed for nothing , iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11 , so why should i support the fact that you may die , Im trying to protect you my brother , more so than bush and cheney , remember actions speak louder than words , where were they when they had a chance to serve their country ?
sharelastly we were attacked in ww2 by japan and then germany declare war on us , iraq d/n attack us we attacked them , now you and your colleagues are fighting a war that does not make me safer at home , in fact ive red that AQ doesn't want ameica to leave , they have americans walking around as targets , if we were not there , what would those AQ guys do ? get in boat and come to america ? Fly to america ? what ? no they 've got good young americans in their sights b/c we won't leave .
share[deleted]
the difference is that bush and cheney are dictating the prosecution of this war ,they are the most hawkish on this war yet failed to serve this country when they had a chance to .
Secondly unlike you I c/n accept that the poor are expendable .
thirdly they tried to kill bush 1 after he made several attempts to kill S.H . w/ bunker blasting bombs .
you say S.H . had it coming, during the 80s we supported S.H. w/ weapons money and training in their war against iran , Bush1 and S.H. were allies .
vietnam was a useless war . its funny that you say we need to support our gov't in time of war or it will turn out like vietnam ....apparently bush and cheney by their action chose not to support their gov't , but yet now they ask you to go back again and again.
understand this , there was no connection to 9/11 b/t S.H. and the terrorist . that was a lie . The camps you saw were created after we invaded iraq thus creating more terrorist.
Some war are just wars , this my brother , is not , and thus I can not stand by while my gov't sends you and your fellow soldiers to die . We must speak out .
[deleted]
Thank you for such a well written post!
It is good to see posters like you!
To actually respond to the OP I think what pisses me off the most about the movie, especially the ending, is that the character is getting praised for doing what he SHOULD have done in the first place.
He did the childish thing and wanted to run from his problem. Instead of sucking up and understanding that sometime, crap happens that doesn't go the way we want it to.
I don't like the fact my hubby has spent multiple tours overseas. But I knew it when I married him, and he knew it when he signed up.
What I want to know is how the main character managed to only serve one tour during his term of service. I know people who have gone 3 times and have only been in 6 years. Hubby has been in 8 and gone twice and is gearing up for the next go.
What I want to know is how the main character managed to only serve one tour during his term of service.
Who said he only served one tour? When he goes back at the end of the film he's going back for his 3rd tour.
As far as hating the ending because the lead character is "getting praised for doing what he SHOULD have done in the first place" Jesus Christ, give him a break! It's a MOVIE CHARACTER! There'd be no frickin' movie if there weren't some sort of conflict. It would have lasted 15 minutes if it showed him in Iraq, coming home and getting sh*tfaced, him being called in and Stop Lossed, and his saying "Sure thing, no problem!"
Some people have questions, fears, problems with things they know they're SUPPOSED to do. Those things make up the middle part of this film.
[deleted]
Why don't you all just admit that its not that you disagree with the war, its that you're afraid to serve. It really amazes me to think that if my generation had to go through WW2 we would lose because six out of ten men these day are cowards. And when are you people just going to admit that you hate this country.
Mean_Green just totally owned this.
I'm completely liberal and I have nothing against the soldiers fighting... just the war. I support our troops 100% and I respect them without a doubt. The only person I do not support or have any respect for is Bush.
If you think protesting the Iraq war makes you anti-American, and refusing to serve in it makes you a coward, then you're a complete moron and I genuinely feel sorry for you.
sharethe difference is that bush is a hypocrit , he is pro-war but when he had a chance to serve he did not , seconly army wife how do you support dlevy's position that the poor are expendable "simply b/c thats the way it has always been done ."
the S.H and GWB were allies , clearly when we supplied the iraq goverment w/ weapons we were their allies agaist iran , when america says that S.H. killed millions of his people , it was under our watch , reagen and bush , it was our weapons that he used to kill his people as well as iranians ,
we have killed innocent women and children in iraq , some in the world would say we are terriost , iraq was not attacking america , we attacked iraq who had nothing to do w/ 9/11. If you want to go into every country that has supported a place wehere terroist could prosper well get ready to go into pakastan , then get ready to go to russia , then get ready to go to syria , then korea , then ...... Im not ready to sacrafice "amrywife's" husband even though she seems ready to.
[deleted]
get your facts straight the Bosnian war ended in 1995 , monica lewisky scandal occurred in 1996 , so your argument about clinton fighting in bosnia is foolish and like your friends on the right another lie . , secondly clinton was right about vietnam , he opposed that war , but he didn't gp around pretending to be a prowar patriot and at the same time duck his obligation while cheerleadng at yale . , Clearly S.H was our allie , I have friend that has a photo of GWB and S.H arm and arm w/ another . I call it allies you call it united front its the same thing ,we were allies w/ russia against nazi germany , according to you wewwere not . even though Russia was at the pots-dam meetings w/ stalin , churchhill and roosevelt . We look foolish in the world , we got into a war and it was unjustified, now your worried about us looking weak , thats a poor reason for american soldier to die and trillions of dollars being spent on this war.
But selling the guns to a known serial killer , i believe prevents you from pointing the finger at that person when they use that gun . we knew of S.H. use of violence but he was our dictator , thus we gave him weapons , and how he used it was ok w/ us as long as he was killing iranians.
The poor are dying for the rich , if the rich believed in this war their children would join , but they don't , they are the true cowards , they are willing to sacrifice the poor and apparently so are you .
[deleted]
listen this little debate as you call it is at the expense of american lives , I love this country , i was born an army brat my father had 2 tours in vietnam , I know the toll what a war can take on the family , im product of it , The only causalities are not the soldiers in iraq but also the family members they leave b/hind so i must apologize for my passion , you also say clinton was involved involved in anti american activities , its not anti american to be against war , in fact had more americans had stood up to nixon government ,my father would not have been shot 3 times , much less take out on his family the horror of war. I also argue w/ you that acceptance of the sacrifice of the poor is by default tacit approval. lastly iran was not a threat they did not attack iraq , it was iraq that attacked iran and it was america who supported iraq and S.H. during that attack ,
share[deleted]
yes I was wrong this is a debate , ,saw a good documentary last night called"shut up and sing " watch it.
share[deleted]
Way to completely miss the point of the movie.
Brandon was in a quintessentially noir situation, that of No Way Out. He didn't choose to go back; he was coerced into it.
Thanks for ruining the movie, *beep* Speaking of pussy, how's your mom?
shareWell I am a Libertarian and Constitutionalist and I say he, his friends, and parts of his family did a favor. Regardless of a moronic President, "with all due respect sir, *beep* the president" (lol), I'd say these guys have more balls than any pussy ass liberal will ever have. That is why liberals cannot fight and eat TOFU like fags.
Robosoldier diggin' a ranger grave.