/node/34908

like a lot of AICN talkbacks, some talkbackers can't help but turning it into a whinge about politics/religion or whatever social issue they see the film as addressing. perhaps that's fair game seeing how filmmakers are seem to be addressing these issues in an increasingly self-conscious way (e.g. Lions for Lambs, Rendition, and pretty much every documentary post-Bowling for Columbine). but it makes for fucking tedious reading.

some of the blame goes to the filmmakers themselves - not, i must stress, for addressing the issues, or even their particular take (even if it's simplistic or in some cases plain moronic) - but for the hokey way that some of them shoehorn the issue into the film. unless it's outright polemic posing as a documentary (which is fine, so far as it goes), it generally makes for terrible filmmaking.

but most of the blame goes to the talkbackers themselves. can't you guys discuss anything without it turning into a polarized bitchfest about Iraq/the Bush Administration/Red State vs Blue State bleargh? it's like Crossfire for the insane.

i don't have a solution, mind. i'm just saying how sucky it is.

and hiedi klum seemed hot, but i saw her on oprah recently, and she sounds just like my stupid fucking insane sister in law, hiedi also doesn't understand the concept of sarcasm..

zee chermanz, no humour. but at least hiedi probably hasn't tried to shake her newborn baby.

the difference between inlaws and outlaws is that outlaws are wanted.

In the old days, leaders didn't wage wars they weren't willing to fight themselves. Washington was ON THE FIELD. Alexander The Great stood on the battlefield. Napoleon wasn't always hiding on another continent while his soldiers were charging the enemy.

Today, we have pussies for leaders. People who pull the trigger from afar and then sit in a comfortable chair and watch their soldiers die on CNN.

I think there should be an international law that makes it a war crime for a leader to wage a war, or call for a major battle, without being physically present on the battlefield. They don't have to lead the troops, but they should at least share the danger. That way, we'd be a lot less likely to see war-- Leaders would think twice before putting soldiers in mortal peril.

Right now, wars are started by people who are least affected by them. Armchair commanders. Fucking unconscionable.

Kingdom failed, as did the rest, which were released very soon after the first. Its not like Hollywood said "Hmmm, Kingdom failed, but let's make more of these Mid East War movies and hope its not a trend."

Its more like "Crap, Kingdom failed, Rendition failed... what else can we do but go ahead and release the film?"

We all know sitting on films for months, much less years at a time, has never (I dont think, but could be wrong) worked well at the box office.

I doubt we'll see any more Mid East movies greenlit, but that doesn't mean we won't see the ones that were already made released.

And to all of you, like Bill O' Reilly and Glenn Beck that are trying to put a spin on this subject by saying these movies are failing at the box office bc Americans don't want to see their soldiers portrayed as losers (which certainly wasn't the case in "Lambs" or "Kingdom"), you're IDIOTS. These movies are failing bc no one wants to see what's on the news everyday, so stop trying to turn this into some sort of "Hollywood is full of evil liberals" bullshit argument.

Yo Xi are you back home yet?

I eagerly await your idiotic, hate filled less-than-grammatically-correc t commentary.

I think you'll get more bang for your buck if I use my right foot. Poetic justice, non?

Love and kisses!

The majority of Iraqis don't want us in their country. Period. Seems like a reasonable enough reason to get the hell out.

I have no love for the Democrats. In fact, I think the whole lousy system is broken, perhaps beyond repair. We're simply going through the motions at this point. There's no difference between the candidates, the policies, the shortcomings. Our votes don't mean a thing anymore, as evidenced by the last two elections. It's gonna take a wakeup call of galactic proportions to snap everyone out of their fog of complacency and expose the wholly evil machinations behind the floating head of the Great and Powerful Wizard.

And it can't come too soon.

Madness.

Howeber, "heroic" is when you go out of your way and put yourself at risk when it's not part of your job, in order to save someone/something. People throw the word "hero" around so much these days that it's losing its meaning.

I mean no slight or insult to soldiers. I'm sure, Xiphos, that you're a kickass soldier and a good, honorable person who did his job to the best of his ability. Most soldiers are. Heroism, however, requires a step beyond simply doing what it is you do for a paycheck, no matter how dangerous that job might be. If you use the "dangerous job" criteria, then coal miners are heroes, as are tiger tamers and guys who work the night shift in gas stations in Detroit.

All my original post was trying to say was that I dislike the idea that men who are somehow supposedly "better" than you have a scary amount of control over your destiny when you're sent to war, and they do it without any risk to themselves or their families. Indeed, the majority of them make sure their families are well clear of the action before they send you off to fight. I think that should change. They should have to deal wih the risks, too.

Maybe you are a hero-- I don't know what you, personally, have done. I know my father saved many lives in his life, between his military duty and his work as a firefighter. He has pulled many a person from a burning house or car, and he would never accept being called a hero--- He was just a guy doing his job.

I worked in gas station in Detroit in the 1990s. I was held up at gun point twice, and was once punched by thugs prior to the store being robbed. I managed to survive, get their description and license plate number (despite being told to "stay in here on the floor until we're gone or I'll kill you") and in doing so made sure the guys were caught before they harmed anyone else. Am I a hero?

I don't think I am. I took the job knowing full well what I was getting into. I got paid for managing the store and preventing financial losses. But maybe I am a hero, after all. I mean, by the criteria of FOX News, just *taking* the job of cop, firefighter, or soldier is heroic on its own. Surely, that makes me a hero, too?

Or maybe we just need to do our jobs and it's our social responsibility to do what we can to help people and deal with the bad guys..?

A speedy recovery to you, Mr. Xiphos. I hope you aren't sent back to fight again when you're an old man.

Those type of actions were once what we expected from Soviet Russia or Mao's China. If you think that is acceptable in the USA, then you ain't a real American, friend.

Perhaps my definition of hero is a little loose and runs too large a gamut of actions. Maybe I like to reward and recognize positive things as I see them. But that's my opinion. But Again, Xiphos never proclaimed himself as such, that was all me.

BTW, you were right on one point. I DO deserve a raise. ;)

Conversely, I just saw Richard Clarke the other day; gave him a sheepish, little wave. He's rather an imposing fella...looks every bit the counter-terrorism badass as he does on TV in front of Congressional committees.

Even Colin Powell now freely admits in interviews that there was never any threat from Iraq. At least HE has the decency to admit they were wrong all along. He also says Bush and especially Cheney ignored reports and intelligence that were contrary to their agenda.

The tragic part is that he probably could have singlehandedly stopped this war if he would have spoken up - or at least delayed it long enough for the truth to catch up - but he followed orders and placed personal duty to his bosses above loyalty to his country. From listening to him in interviews now, I get the feeling he deeply regrets not taking a stronger stand against the rush to war by the administration of which he was an integral part. The media and the world would have listened to what he had to say, and Bush & Co. would have been forced to answer tough questions and defend their actions instead of rushing to war.

But hey, important people with connections in high places had lots of money to make and they were growing impatient, so what's a poor lackey to do?

Unfortunately, the mainstream media rarely digs back that far to show us our enemies' motivations. Instead we get sound bites from speeches where our leaders tell us they hate us because "they're bad guys" and "they hate freedom". Maybe if most Americans had realized that we were attacked on 9/11 by disgruntled Saudi Arabians angry about their government's cooperation with the US, they might not have been duped into rushing into an unnecessary and illegal war with Iraq, an uninvolved bystander.

On the morning of the 9/11 tragedy, Dick Cheney was personally supervising wargame exercises that included simulations of THE HIJACKING OF US AIRLINERS AND FLYING THEM INTO BUILDINGS. Coincidentally, "the terrorists" were able to coordinate their "attacks" with clockwork-like precision at the EXACT SAME TIME these exercise simulations were in play, and in the EXACT SAME MANNER in which they were being simulated.

I'm not saying that it was all an inside job, but anyone who thinks that the "Islamofascists" are the sole architects of what happened on 9/11 is either refusing to see the truth or is part of the conspiracy. If you've read the PNAC and are familiar with Operation Northwoods (Google it) then you're already a step ahead of the game.

They have their own agendas, and they're determined to carry them out, no matter what the cost. They want you to stay stupid. To trust blindly. To be afraid and to seek their protection. They're counting on it. And you're giving it to them on a silver platter, at the expense of your freedom and your security.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Educate yourself. Ask the tough questions, and don't settle for half-assed answers by the ones who are determined to keep you ignorant.

Awake and arise.

For your convenience:

"On the morning of the 9/11 tragedy, Dick Cheney was personally supervising wargame exercises that included simulations of THE HIJACKING OF US AIRLINERS AND FLYING THEM INTO BUILDINGS. Coincidentally, "the terrorists" were able to coordinate their "attacks" with clockwork-like precision at the EXACT SAME TIME these exercise simulations were in play, and in the EXACT SAME MANNER in which they were being simulated."

Really, it doesn't get more obvious than that.

And if all you have to rebut the things I've recently posted here are lazy, uninspired insults, then you're truly wasting your time and energy.

Too bad, so sad.

Nuff said.