| Author |
 Topic  |
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2007 : 4:38:30 PM
|
| I was wondering how long it would took to appear on the board... I'll try to keep my mouth shut until I get to see it, De Palma's seen better days but he's always worth the cost of the ticket. |
 |
|
|
The Warden
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 5:09:51 PM
|
Just curious... but the tone of the comments on the board suggests that being against the Iraq war is somehow leftist. At this point, Saddam is dead, Iraq is disarmed, al Qaeda in Iraq seems to have been marginalized and possible defeated outright (at the very least it is less of a force than it is in Afghanistan or Pakistan).... so all we seem to be there for is to keep the Iraqi from fighting each other and to nation-built. Traditionally this sort of peacekeeping/nation-building is the lefty thing to do.
I dunno. Someone educate me.
--The Warden --
=====================
www.prisonflicks.com
===================== |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 7:31:34 PM
|
Lots of conservatives here, myself included.
There are non-liberals who oppose Iraq (I hesitate to use the word "conservatives"), many of whom have flocked to Ron Paul's banner. But these are not numerous.
You are right about one thing.
If we were doing in Darfur what we are currently doing in Iraq and DID do in Bosnia, many people like Redford or Clooney and others would be quite pleased.
But it is complex.
The United States has no real vested national interest in making Darfur stable and peaceful. We'd be doing it just for humanitarian reasons alone.
That, to a Clooney or Redford, would make it a "just" military action.
Because there is a humanitarian angle in Iraq AND we have a vested national interest in seeing Iraq stabilized in that strategically vital part of the world, the Clooneys and Redfords will never support it.
Also, it helps if you have a Democrat President. It is somewhat easier for them to go to war than it is for Republicans in this sense.
Since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party has assumed the mantle of the "war protest" party. So when they apply military force, they get to appear as if they are doing it with the greatest of reluctance.
Republicans? Heck, we just can't wait to start pulling triggers.
|
|
|
|
BT
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 9:37:05 PM
|
citizen, I would say the major difference between Bosnia and Iraq is the cost/benefit analysis. In Bosnia, our forces stopped active genocide, without losing a single soldier (if I'm not mistaken). It wasn't justified by the left simply because it was humanitarian, but because it was both doable, AND humanitarian.
Iraq has proven far more expensive in both blood and treasure.
I'd also argue with your definition of the "war protest" party. I'm sure you have seen these quotes, but I think they are illuminating:
quote:
"You can support the troops but not the president."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President...is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
Even more damning is this one:
quote:
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
Perhaps it's more of a case that the opposition party is the "war protest" party.
For the record, I supported the first war with Iraq, the invasion of Panama, the intervention in Bosnia, and the attack on Afghanistan. I don't support this war. I'd like to believe my opposition was based on rational thinking (while I assumed Hussein had WMD's, I could never get a straight answer from anyone as to why he posed a greater threat than any number of other terrorist countries, or why he would use WMD's on us, in order to justify a "pre-emptive" war), and less on which political party I supported. |
|
|
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:13:43 PM
|
Now we're cooking.
Here's Roger Eberts review.
[url="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/REVIEWS/711150303/1023"]Click HERE[/url]
________________________________________________________________________
"Ward, the Beaver blew up the 7-11 again."
"I'll have a talk with him Dear" |
|
|
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:21:26 PM
|
And a little Dennis Miller just to shake things up.
[url="http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=ae4d9ac9-5c76-48a7-8870-5a2efcc73154"]Click Here[/url]
________________________________________________________________________
"Ward, the Beaver blew up the 7-11 again."
"I'll have a talk with him Dear" |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:28:30 PM
|
New arguments coming out in light of an FBI agent named Piro who was Saddam Hussein's interrogator before his execution. Apparently, this information is in a book he is just now releasing.
According to Piro, Saddam admitted that he'd lied about having WMDs throughout the 1990s. His main reason being it was the only card left in his deck that might keep Iran from attacking Iraq in it's weakened state and with massive in-house Shiite support.
Kick some inspectors out, act like you have something to hide, and the world pretty much assumes you have massive stockpiles of anthrax and sarin. Indeed, if you think about it, the Clinton Administration's WMD rhetoric of 1998 and subsequent punitive bombing in Operation Fox served to make it look like Saddam was still a WMD player.
But what else could Clinton or Bush assume, when Saddam was acting the way he did? As long as the price to pay was an embargo Saddam and the U.N. ignored or worked around anyway and the occassional bombing, it was worth it in order to maintain power.
But as Saddam confessed to Piro, he didn't anticipate 9/11. It changed everything and Saddam's brinksmanship turned around and bit him.
Now, Iraq became a nation with chemical and biological weapons that also may have had dealings with representatives from al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Five pounds of weaponized anthrax released from a Cessna over a large city is apparently enough to cause thousands of deaths. Perhaps Saddam was looking to make a deal?
In effect, we are in Iraq because of Saddam's bluff and his brinksmanship. In light of the information available, I don't see how any President could stop short of removing him as a threat permanently.
But that's just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:47:55 PM
|
To answer the Warden's question more directly, being anti-Iraq war isn't necessarily leftist. However, Hollywood filmmakers are mostly leftist (that's not exactly a secret), and it's a safe bet the majority of the filmmakers unleashing this recent crop of anti-war films are all lefties. (Redford certainly is.)
|
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:53:08 PM
|
As for Redacted itself, DePalma in interviews has made clear the agenda behind the making of this film: to turn U.S. audiences against the Iraq war. Politics aside, there's a problem with De Palma's approach, as former Hollywood agent Pat Dollard pointed out in his blog:
"DePalma said that going in it was his intention to make a film that would nauseate the American people, and thereby lead to a US withdrawal from Iraq. Well the only way for him to pull that off is if his film makes the case that the anomolous rape it fictionalizes is not actually an anomoly, but a “typical” snapshot of the US military’s behavior. In short, he would have to make his “troops-as-monsters” conceit appear to be typical of the troops, not atypical. This reveals a desire to create something that is nothing short of a willful and intentional smear built upon a lie. It also means that he decided not to look at Iraq for what it was, but to find something - anything - in it that would allow him to advance his propaganda campaign." |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 06:41:03 AM
|
I think DePalma will nauseate the American people, but towards Hollywood. Not soldiers.
It's gotten to the point these days where I'm embarassed to wear my uniform in restaurants if I decide to stop on my way home from duty to eat.
Reason? People in Ohio just won't let me pay for my own meals. I mean I've had more than one patron try to pay for my meal simultaneously. And they won't take a polite no for an answer.
People send their children over to my table to talk to me. Once I was dining with another officer and two little girls came to our table to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. No kidding.
We're bigger than Santa Claus.
This happens everytime I go anywhere in uniform. The thing about Ohio is this. It is the ultimate "test market" of America. When a company wants to know if their product will sell nationally, they try it in this state first. We are what they call the "statistical median" of America. In other words, we're about as American as they come.
DePalma probably wasn't thinking about that. My only regret is that Redacted didn't cost millions more to make so Hollywood could take a bigger bath in it. |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 2:09:39 PM
|
To say that Hollywoodland is out of touch with mainstream Americans is like saying that 2 and 2 make 4. My question about this spate of anti-war bombs concerns whether or not the Hollywood types actually believe that anyone wants to watch them. I’ll grant that a lot of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq for reasons that are varied and complex. As a card-carrying right-wing madman, I’ll speak for some of us in saying that some disillusionment with the war is due to our belief that politically correct considerations are tying the hands of soldiers in the field. What I’m not convinced of is that the makers of these movies – even though they are shallow and uninformed - think that they will be popular because the war in Iraq is currently unpopular. In fact given the long lead time that movies have before they are released, I’m not even sure that these movies didn’t begin filming when the war in Iraq did have popular support.
I’m starting to believe that these films constitute the biggest metaphorical mooning in history. The people making them don’t care in the slightest that people actually go and watch them. All they are interested in is getting a pat on the back from Jennifer Lopez toadies like Roger Ebert and their pinky-raising Latte-sipping confreres in Sundance and Cannes. And when (not if) the movie bombs they can still feel smugly superior to the unwashed cretins in middle America for not appreciating their genius. It just proves how “transgressive” and “courageous” they are. After all, here are average AmeriKKKans “censoring” them by not paying $10+ to watch their boring sub-par films.
And while I share C.C.’s wish that these films turn out to be Heaven’s Gate studio-bankrupting disasters, the fact that they won’t be bolsters my thesis. They just haven’t invested too much money in these fingers to flyover country. Take Lions for Lambs for example. It’s just a bunch of big name actors sitting around on static sets yakking. The only significant cash outlay would have been for salaries, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Cruise and Streep and Redford just took residuals or something in lieu of salary. None of them need the money, and no matter how the movie does they’ll still get the pat on the back I mentioned above. |
|
|
|
The Warden
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 2:27:39 PM
|
The war in Iraq is the single biggest issue in American political life today. To the extent that art seeks to be relevant, it has to address the issue. So what should a movie about the war in Iraq say? I would also like to see a positive movie, perhaps about an Iraqi whose family has been tortured by Saddam finding a way to rebuild a decent life in post-Saddam Iraq. I think you could make that work. But that said, war is tragic even when necessary, and that fact that filmmakers are drawn to portray that tragedy is hardly evidence of a leftist conspiracy. Even in good wars, bad things happen, and noting that fact is not a particularly profound or radical political statement.
I'll tell you what annoys me. If this war had occurred on Clinton's watch, conservatives would be jumping up and down to express their outrage at the way the war was handled and would absolutely condemn having Americans continue to die simply to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other. But Bush gets a free pass... and worse, anyone who expresses in prose, song, or film any frustration with the war and its consequences is branded an out-of-touch traitor who hates the troops.
--The Warden --
=====================
www.prisonflicks.com
===================== |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 4:10:54 PM
|
CC, I didn't know you are a fellow Ohioan. Where are you from?
I'll summarize how I see the anti-war breakdown.
1. The Completely Deranged: these people see Bush and America as the coming of the anti-Christ
2. Anti-Jewish Lobby: our foreign policy is dictated by Israel
3. Invade Iraq Yes; Stay No: taking out Saddam was fine, but we should have just put someone in charge and left (BTW, this is my position)
4. Pacifists: no explanation needed
5. Opposition for Other Reasons: people who reasonably concluded it wasn't a good idea
Positions #3 and #5 are reasonable in my book. Position #4 is fine, but those people are going to oppose any position.
- While science has societal benefits, science is not a social virtue. - |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 6:44:53 PM
|
Some of the posts in this thread prove conclusively that it's not just Hollywood or the far left who are out of touch with the real world.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: BLACK COUGARIZED - As seen on "American Inventor", the most New York superhero of all time!
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 10:54:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Terrahawk
I'll summarize how I see the anti-war breakdown.
1. The Completely Deranged: these people see Bush and America as the coming of the anti-Christ
2. Anti-Jewish Lobby: our foreign policy is dictated by Israel
3. Invade Iraq Yes; Stay No: taking out Saddam was fine, but we should have just put someone in charge and left (BTW, this is my position)
4. Pacifists: no explanation needed
5. Opposition for Other Reasons: people who reasonably concluded it wasn't a good idea
Positions #3 and #5 are reasonable in my book. Position #4 is fine, but those people are going to oppose any position.
T.H.,
I think you left a group off of the list, although there is obviously some overlap. There is a large group of baby-boomers - many in Hollywood, politics and the media - who are nostalgic for the Vietnam war. They came of age protesting Vietnam and now that the country has sort-of come around to looking back on Vietnam with regret, they feel themselves as a morally anointed elect that saved America from the guys who killed Kennedy rather than a bunch of college kid deadbeats who didn't want to trade bong hits down at the quad for a military uniform and go serve their country. Now every time a conflict comes around that has even a passing resemblance to Vietnam, its time for our moral saviors to go back to the barricades at the Chicago 1968 Convention and save us all once again.
This is as clear as can be from this very movie. After all it’s just a rehash of De Palma’s last “American soldiers are evil rapists” movie Casualties of War set – you guessed it – in Vietnam. And which also touches on …
quote:
Originally posted by The Warden
I'll tell you what annoys me. If this war had occurred on Clinton's watch, conservatives would be jumping up and down to express their outrage at the way the war was handled and would absolutely condemn having Americans continue to die simply to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other. But Bush gets a free pass... and worse, anyone who expresses in prose, song, or film any frustration with the war and its consequences is branded an out-of-touch traitor who hates the troops.
I can only speak for myself here as someone who is conservative and frustrated with the war. I think Bush’s strategy was profoundly misguided in that he seems to think the purpose of warfare is to show other people how much you respect their wonderful history rather than scaring the s*@t out of them so that they never consider doing foolish things again. I do not give the man a free pass. My problem with the lefties is that they are profoundly unserious. Do we need to change course? Do we just need to leave Iraq to its fate? To tell you the honest truth, as a cold-hearted right-wing b#*@$!(d, I don’t lose all that much sleep over worrying about what Iraqis do to each other should we decide that the lives of American soldiers shouldn’t be risked anymore. I don’t have all the answers and I’d be willing to hear anyone out as to how to end this thing in the best way possible for the U.S. But all the Left wants to do is call people names. Bush is Hitler (and dumb and a liar). American solders are rapists and murderers. Corporate media are Republican lackeys (Lions for Lambs). None of this is constructive or responsible.
Here’s a prediction you can hold me to come 2009. If that horrendous woman gets elected next year as President, she will not be pulling the troops out of Iraq. Why? She’s not going to want pictures of thousands of people being massacred in Iraq on the evening news each night. So the war will muddle on. The reason for self-righteous moral preening on the Left, however, will have left the Oval Office. If the conservatives start calling for the troops to be pulled out then, I will be forced to admit they are hypocrites. But I can guarantee you that her buddies in Hollywood won’t be making any more movies about how terrible our involvement in Iraq is. It will cease to matter to them one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked