Saddam Hussein...
Archived72 replies · 1,456 views
should he hang???
Closed-
let him rot in prison and let him be ali baba's bitch... 13 (57%)
-
or string him up like a mexican piñata... 10 (43%)
23 votes · voting closed
Digi Mike Binoche wrote: It should be Bush not Saddam.
Bush a greater villain than Osama Bin Laden.
Also a greater hero than the American Troops. 
What a week: First James Brown, than Gerald Ford, and now Saddam 
Now if only Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears would follow suit 
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: He's been dead for over 50 mins.
Funny, I didn't notice, and don't miss him. 
His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Bush hang. Criminals like him deserve it.[/quote
nah I'd rather see Bush disgraced and impeached-much richer. The idea of it makes me want to fight even harder
What a loss of time.
Country leaders should be judged in Holland, at the international tribunal...
It's impossible to be neutral if this is done in Iraq... plus, does it ever occured to anybody that we only had 1 side of the story and we're ready to judge based on that?
It's easy to trust our governments. (I just finished 24 Season 5, forgive me )
Sure thing is... death penalty is a crime against humanity, I will never agree with that, nobody, even how horrible their crimes are, diserves that.
Amazing how a few here are actually crying for Saddam. Good riddance I say
......long live the death penalty.
Sorry, sounded like I was directing that towards a NOOLer, I meant here as in the US. In watching the news and talking to people, there are a few that bought into Saddam's letter and they cry as if he was some innocent that is getting a great mistrial, by the W the big bully. Saddam deserved what was coming to him, wish we could do it with a lot more of the dictators out there.
EdelBrock wrote: Sorry, sounded like I was directing that towards a NOOLer, I meant here as in the US. In watching the news and talking to people, there are a few that bought into Saddam's letter and they cry as if he was some innocent that is getting a great mistrial, by the W the big bully. Saddam deserved what was coming to him, wish we could do it with a lot more of the dictators out there.
Suppose it depends which of your friends won't let you have their oil next.
ahhh...c'mon JT...that was when Iraq was gonna take care of the Iranians...before Saddam had invaded Kuwait...before the UN also thought he was trying to produce WMDs...makes about as much sense as saying this pic:
shows that the English were a bunch of Nazis...
everybody knows that politics makes for strange bedfellows...
now...having said all that...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world??? Will all the sectarian strife in Iraq suddenly cease??? Like fuck it will... The Shiites and Kurds are happy, of course they are...he persecuted them...but the Sunnis now have a martyr...
and notice how the only people saying that he got a fair trial and due process are the American backed Iraqi regime, the Bush administration, his so called lap dog in England, and the Australians...of course, the rest of the Western countries only seem to want to talk about how Capital Punishment is wrong (way to skirt the issue guys)...
ahh well...like I said, his execution won't bring any good...
Fair point, we should have listened to Churchill then, when he was telling us years ahead that the guy was a nutter and needed to be dealt with.
EDIT: not sure sure this is a fair point as there is significant difference between appeasement to ensure peace and the deliberate policy of arming a twat as long as he is at war with someone you don't think you can get oil from.
what I fail to understand is why today?
- If you are are trying to make a point of executing a leader of a muslim country today is a good day
- If you are not trying to make a point, why give your enemies the option to convince the brainwashed masses that this is a neo-crusade?
James Thomas wrote: 2. If you are not trying to make a point, why give your enemies the option to convince the brainwashed masses that this is a neo-crusade?
Because increasingly the true face of this "War on Terror" is showing itself, and hello! It is a neo-crusade. Who would've guessed?
Well, me for one. But no one listens to me.
He was tough but fair, a beautiful man. It's not true that he nailed my wife's head to a table...okay, it's true. But he was always a gentleman, and he knew how to treat a female impersonator
i feel a little sad, i think we should have been the bigger idealogy and given him a unbiasd'd trial. in the end he got what he deserved but we still comitted murder as a society.
True xoq....it doesn;t do to set oneself up as some sort of higher moral species, then act like anials at the first chance.
The guy was a fuckin toe-rag, he got his, fair enough, but I'd really like to see Shrub swinging next to him, and blair spending a month in the Stock in trafalgar square....or doing a national tour.
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???
exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.
arek p. wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???
exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.
From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.
EdelBrock wrote:
arek p. wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???
exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.
From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.
maybe youre right, Iam not a Middle East expert, maybe Iraqis feel safely now. I am sure many of them are pleased with his dead, fine; but is this execution solving at least one Iraq's problem
arek p. wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
arek p. wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???
exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.
From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.
maybe youre right, Iam not a Middle East expert, maybe Iraqis feel safely now. I am sure many of them are pleased with his dead, fine; but is this execution solving at least one Iraq's problem
Good question. The one part of planning for battles that can not be understood until attacking is the human element. I hope the execution does good, I think it will, but to what exent and will it make a large enough impact....well, your guess is as good as mine.
The USA gave Saddam to his Shite enemies to hang, Saddam and the Bath party are Sunni as well as Al-Quiada ... how does this hanging show an example of democracy to Itaq and and show that they want an end of sectarian violence? Yes, Iraq is so much more civilized and modern now...
Rednecks in America are happy thou ..."yee haw!"
EdelBrock wrote:
arek p. wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???
exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.
From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.
Yeah, now they have to deal with Al-Quaida instead... much better!
You may not like Saddam, but truth is, in the middle east, Iraq was probably better to its people than most countries over there. At least in Iraq, women were allowed to go to school and a lot of other things.
I'm not saying things were done right, but compared to other countries, it was a bit better...
Now though, it's complete chaos, nobody would like to live in the Iraq of today.
Spotnick wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
arek p. wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???
exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.
From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.
Yeah, now they have to deal with Al-Quaida instead... much better!
You may not like Saddam, but truth is, in the middle east, Iraq was probably better to its people than most countries over there. At least in Iraq, women were allowed to go to school and a lot of other things.
I'm not saying things were done right, but compared to other countries, it was a bit better...
Now though, it's complete chaos, nobody would like to live in the Iraq of today.
True, but sometimes to make something better you have to make a shit storm.
I have a theory that Saddam's not really dead, he's just in hiding so he can keep putting out albums of "unreleased material" for his fans to convince themselves that he's sending them messages about his real fate via his songs. 
No, wait, that's my theory concerning Tupac. My bad 
Taboo # 7 wrote: I have a theory that Saddam's not really dead, he's just in hiding so he can keep putting out albums of "unreleased material" for his fans to convince themselves that he's sending them messages about his real fate via his songs.
No, wait, that's my theory concerning Tupac. My bad
I thought they were one and the same
saddam was a sack of shit,i hope the cunt rotts in hell. and im not going to temper that with the (they should have hanged bush n blair)as well argument. would either of them have survived killing over 300,000 of their own people?? i think not.
mike powell wrote: saddam was a sack of shit,i hope the cunt rotts in hell. and im not going to temper that with the (they should have hanged bush n blair)as well argument. would either of them have survived killing over 300,000 of their own people?? i think not.
Well I understand Bush has just passed 3,000 in terms of troops.
At least Saddam gained his power thru his own assholeness, Bush was an asshole loser who given his power to be a tool. I could just hear Bush cackling and boasting about the execution while praising his god ..."heh heh heh"
James Thomas wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Sorry, sounded like I was directing that towards a NOOLer, I meant here as in the US. In watching the news and talking to people, there are a few that bought into Saddam's letter and they cry as if he was some innocent that is getting a great mistrial, by the W the big bully. Saddam deserved what was coming to him, wish we could do it with a lot more of the dictators out there.
Suppose it depends which of your friends won't let you have their oil next.
Hey, you forgot these:
http://www.adamzelwin.com/F%20The%20French.htm
http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/000200.html
Oh yeah, you also forgot to post copies of the oil contracts France, Germany and Russia had with Saddam.
Well, for a man who is brutal and heartless, I'm glad that Saddam is dead. No different from Nuremberg.
The man who secretly recorded Hussein's execution to be executed?
The things go even worse after the capture of Hussein who was a secularization monolith in the world of a radical religion, according tohttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1573593,00.html.
It's an open question. Let's see what's happening in Somalia - almost the same scenario as in the Sudan has occured.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: The man who secretly recorded Hussein's execution to be executed?
Oh FFS... I doubt it.
How can you casually hold up a mobile phone (and a quality one, at that) in a hanging chamber without being noticed?
If this wasn't allowed and agreed beforehand on the specific basis it would be leaked on the net, then I'll eat my hat. Looks distinctly to me like official sources using 'unofficial' multimedia to spread the video.
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Well, for a man who is brutal and heartless, I'm glad that Saddam is dead. No different from Nuremberg.
I just saw a movie-- Casualties of War-- based on a horrific war crime in Vietnam. Four American soldiers kidnapped a teenage Vietnamese villager, gang-raped her, and then killed her to cover up their crime. One soldier refused to participate, and became the "bad guy" for his not participating. He reported the incident up the chain of command, but his commanding officers weren't interested. Eventually, there was a court martial, but the sentences for two of the soldiers were greatly reduced, and two of the sentences were overturned.
Shortly after that atrocity was reported, American soldiers murdered over 500 civilians in the village of My Lai, mostly the elderly, women, and children. The slaughter was stopped by one American helicopter crew, who trained their machine guns on their fellow Americans and said they'd shoot if the killing continued. The Lieutenant who stopped the massacre died one year ago this weekend.
Only one soldier, Lieutenant Calley, was convicted for his role in the civilian massacre, despite evidence that his Captain not only gave the orders, but was also involved in the killings. Calley served 3 1/2 years of house arrest at Fort Benning.
Colin Powell, who organized the original My Lai coverup, went on to a distinguished career as an admired American hero.
Nearly 40 years later, American marines gang rape and kill an Iraqi teenager, before killing her and her family to cover up their crime....
Not to say that German, or Japanese, or Serb, or Iraqi war criminals shouldn't be tried. Just that we seem to have one standard for their war criminals, and another standard for our.... well, we don't really like to acknowledge that we have war criminals, all the way up he chain of command, much less punish them.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Not to say that German, or Japanese, or Serb, or Iraqi war criminals shouldn't be tried. Just that we seem to have one standard for their war criminals, and another standard for our.... well, we don't really like to acknowledge that we have war criminals, all the way up he chain of command, much less punish them.
Ultimately in the end... all armies are internally as bad when it comes to war crimes. The main problem with court martialling troops during a war, rather than after it, is troop morale. However, I wish some redress was made to show the shone doesnt shine out of the Allied forces asses.
Watched a repeated documentary over Xmas period, re: the Xmas Day Truce over the trenches between UK and German troops in WW1, when opposing troops played football against each other, exchanged gifts and cards etc, and buried their dead. Reminded moi of how often balanced opposing forces can be in terms of right and wrong, and the complete futility of it all.
The U.S. says it won't submit to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction because it won't subject U.S. soldiers to politically-motivated war crimes trials.
If we won't submit to international jurisdiction, and we won't try those responsible-- yeah, Abu Ghraib was just some trailer trash girl and her buddies, it had nothing to do with higher-ups-- then we're giving American war criminals a pass.
The marines charged with the Iraqi rape/murder are facing a death penalty, though.
Bet they don't see the end of a rope, the way Saddam did....
I only saw clips of Casualties of War and almost watched it today. Very disturbing. Funny that my post is being quoted. Anyway, after I posted my response, there was a National Geographic Special on Saddam's brutal regime. I won't change my mind on what I've said about Saddam being executed. However, with all of this talk about war crimes, I can say that America and other free countries must make an example of how vital it is for their militaries to accept their responsibility for atrocities.
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Very disturbing.
Yep, as you can prolly tell from my post.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The U.S. says it won't submit to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction because it won't subject U.S. soldiers to politically-motivated war crimes trials.
If we won't submit to international jurisdiction, and we won't try those responsible-- yeah, Abu Ghraib was just some trailer trash girl and her buddies, it had nothing to do with higher-ups-- then we're giving American war criminals a pass.
The marines charged with the Iraqi rape/murder are facing a death penalty, though.
Bet they don't see the end of a rope, the way Saddam did....
Thats always the victors spoils though. Even if a victory is a distinctly 'hollow' and ongoing claim in this case. Perhaps the said offenders should be tried in Iraq, where a 'democratic' (ha-ha!) government has been established. After all, these crimes took place in the place. Fucking weird and 'selective' is all this democracy lark.
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Anyway, after I posted my response, there was a National Geographic Special on Saddam's brutal regime. I won't change my mind on what I've said about Saddam being executed.
No need to, it was just the Nuremberg reference that brought our own atrocities to mind....
However, with all of this talk about war crimes, I can say that America and other free countries must make an example of how vital it is for their militaries to accept their responsibility for atrocities.
Exactly. We're supposed to be the good guys.
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Funny that my post is being quoted.
Yes... unusual too; amazing it was Commie quoting you too.
Comrade, you also need to remember that Vietnam had many different circumstances. If you look at war, it is a brutal and ugly thing. You throw in tens of thousands of people together you will have your small percentage that are going to do horrific things. Also, before Vietnam, there wasn't any televised battles before, and although it is by no means right, it was considered by many as common place.
Today's standards have changed things drastically. The military is fully aware of the impacts of media coverage now, and there are more regulations and convictions than you are made aware of. Iraq will not be lost by military strength or death toll, it will be won or lost by media coverage (which is how Vietnam was lost).
Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.
Being a moderate, I also have to agree that Hollywood is biased to wars lately. The only war movie that I can say is the best is Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." The man knows how to instill reality in the film. Pretty soon, Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima" would join my list.
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Being a moderate, I also have to agree that Hollywood is biased to wars lately. The only war movie that I can say is the best is Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." The man knows how to instill reality in the film. Pretty soon, Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima" would join my list.
I agree with "Private Ryan" being the most authentic war movie or one of them...for at least the first thirty minutes or so when the D-Day landings are going on. Then it devolves into an almost standard "buddy war movie" in which the platoon is slowly whittled down on a mission that either works or doesn't for the viewer. I'm not saying that the movie as a whole is less for it, but the second act seems almost routine war-movie schtick compared to the you-are-there momentum of the landing scene. The battle scene at the end doesn't hold up compared to the landing scene (it's probably not supposed to).
I would recommend "Das Boot" myself, just because it gives a good insight into what some types of warfare are like (long periods of boredom punctuated by intense and sudden combat that can come at any time). Also try the 1930 version of "All Quiet on the Western Front" on for size; for a Hayes Code-era war film it's pretty honest to the book. "MASH" (the movie, not the TV show) is a comedy of course, but it's a reaction against the horror and senselessness of war.
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: The only war movie that I can say is the best is Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." The man knows how to instill reality in the film.
How is relying on a lot of cliched soldier-boy stereotypes and 'Greatest Generation' schmaltz "realistic"?
I think by far the best, and nothing, I mean nothing comes close is Band of Brothers. granted an HBO mini series, but it is one "movie' that actually uses military tactics (that Hollywood tends to screw up all the time). If you haven't seen it, it is a complete must see, even if you don't like war movies, it will blow you away.
EdelBrock wrote: Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.
It's not an anti-war film. It's a film about a soldier trying to maintain his own morality-- when the men in his squad commit a war crime-- in the face of extreme pressure to both participate, and to look the other way.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.
It's not an anti-war film. It's a film about a soldier trying to maintain his own morality-- when the men in his squad commit a war crime-- in the face of extreme pressure to both participate, and to look the other way.
Well that's hollywood trying to be clever by putting this movie out right now and subliminaly send a message. So after leaving this movie, do you feel like joining the service? Does it make you feel that the military is full of unintellectual fools that only follow hollow orders? Does it seem to have a similar feeling as Haditha? And since Iraq has been conviently linked to Vietnam as 'similar' by the media, you can't see how this crosses over as an antiwar movie, but more specifically an anti-Iraq war movie?
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.
It's not an anti-war film. It's a film about a soldier trying to maintain his own morality-- when the men in his squad commit a war crime-- in the face of extreme pressure to both participate, and to look the other way.
Well that's hollywood trying to be clever by putting this movie out right now and subliminaly send a message. So after leaving this movie, do you feel like joining the service? Does it make you feel that the military is full of unintellectual fools that only follow hollow orders? Does it seem to have a similar feeling as Haditha? And since Iraq has been conviently linked to Vietnam as 'similar' by the media, you can't see how this crosses over as an antiwar movie, but more specifically an anti-Iraq war movie?
I missed the title of the movie you are talking about and am too lazy to go back and check what it is...so can I assume you're talking about Big Mamma's House 2?
Because then it totally makes sense
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.
It's not an anti-war film. It's a film about a soldier trying to maintain his own morality-- when the men in his squad commit a war crime-- in the face of extreme pressure to both participate, and to look the other way.
Well that's hollywood trying to be clever by putting this movie out right now and subliminaly send a message. So after leaving this movie, do you feel like joining the service? Does it make you feel that the military is full of unintellectual fools that only follow hollow orders? Does it seem to have a similar feeling as Haditha? And since Iraq has been conviently linked to Vietnam as 'similar' by the media, you can't see how this crosses over as an antiwar movie, but more specifically an anti-Iraq war movie?
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.
It's not an anti-war film. It's a film about a soldier trying to maintain his own morality-- when the men in his squad commit a war crime-- in the face of extreme pressure to both participate, and to look the other way.
Well that's hollywood trying to be clever by putting this movie out right now and subliminaly send a message.
The film was released in 1989.
So after leaving this movie, do you feel like joining the service?
Is that what you think the "meaning" of war films should be?
Does it make you feel that the military is full of unintellectual fools that only follow hollow orders?
Once more for those who weren't paying attention. The theme of the film is the struggle of one man to maintain his morality in the face of intense pressure to abandon his morality.
There are five men in the squad: Sergeant Meserve (Sean Penn), Corporal Clarke, and Privates Hatcher, Diaz, and Eriksson (Michael J. Fox). Meserve is 20 years old, New York City working class, and as becomes clear in the course of the film, brutal and immoral. Clarke is a psychopathic killer. Hatcher is a not-very-bright guy who does what his Sergeant tells him to do, and Diaz is a guy who wants no part in the rape, and makes a pact with Eriksson not to rape the girl, but caves in because he doesn't want the other guys to think he's a "fag." Eriksson is the only soldier in his squad who refuses to rape the girl. He's not the only soldier in the army who realizes the rape/murder was a war crime.
After she is murdered by the squad members, Eriksson tells his friend in another squad about it, and his friend says to go to Lt. Riley about it. Eriksson reports the murder to Lt. Riley, who does nothing about it, and then to his Captain, who tells him that a court martial will ruin Meserve's life. Eriksson finally tells a chaplain, and and the incident finally gets investigated, leading to courts martial for the four men involved in the rape/murder.
Now... It's not a film about a military "full of unintellectual fools who only follow hollow orders." It's a film, based on an actual incident, about one man confronted with pressure to abandon his morality.
Does it seem to have a similar feeling as Haditha?
I made that connection, the film didn't, and couldn't have, because the film was released 17 years before the Haditha rape/murders.
And what do you think the point of my connecting the two incidents was? If you'll recall, I responded to Cozzie's post drawing comparisons between Saddam Hussein's trial & execution with the Nuremberg trials. And as I previously said, we have one standard for war criminals from other countries, and a different standard for war criminals who happen to be American. And when we mollycoddle our own war criminals, we lose whatever moral high ground we had.
And since Iraq has been conviently linked to Vietnam as 'similar' by the media, you can't see how this crosses over as an antiwar movie, but more specifically an anti-Iraq war movie?
It's not an anti-war film, no matter how many times you say it is. It's a film about a man struggling to maintain his morality....
I don't think the film is an anti-war film, but an anti-Marine film, or US army or whatever. Any films that portrays soldiers raping innocent people in an anti-army film. The fact that noone would listen to Marty McFly about the rape and murder shows the corruption in the US Army.
I think linking the Nuremberg Trials and Saddam is slightly difficult as Saddam was tried by Iraqis and not a coalition of western forces.
I think it's good he's got rid of, but it does open a whole new can of worms in Iraq. It's going to cause trouble between the different sections of Muslims that is going to take a long time to sort out.
FrogChorus wrote: The fact that noone would listen to Marty McFly
FrogChorus wrote: I don't think the film is an anti-war film, but an anti-Marine film, or US army or whatever. Any films that portrays soldiers raping innocent people in an anti-army film. The fact that noone would listen to Marty McFly about the rape and murder shows the corruption in the US Army.
In the film, it wasn't institutionalized corruption. It was the immediate chain of command-- McFly's Lieutenant, and his Captain. Part of McFly's dilemma was trying to stay within military rules. He had an opportunity to save the girl, after she was raped, but before she was murdered, but as he was preparing to leave with her, he realized he could be charged with desertion, so he hesitated. Then, as he decided to leave with her despite the potential desertion charges, the psychopathic corporal caught up with him.
Later, he tried to report the crime, but he had to do it within his chain of command. And when his immediate superiors showed no interest in an investigation, he became disheartened.
Once the story went outside of his unit, through the chaplain, it was investigated and charges were filed. So it wasn't institutional corruption, and therefore, i don't think it can be portrayed as an "anti-military film."
That doesn't mean that the military didn't turn a blind eye to war crimes in Vietnam, it just means that in this film, and in the actual incident, the military did investigate and prosecute.
Well I suppose if you only watch half the film then it's anti-military.... I suppose it could also deter people to look into US Army atrocities in Vietnam and see how dodgy the army were in real life...
I do agree with the earlier point that there is different standards for war criminals. US/British/Allied forces that commit atrocities should be dealt with and court-martialled or punished accordingly. It's a pity that that cannot be done with a media circus and done properly. It doesn't set a very good example nor make the Iraqi/wherever population feel safe in the hands of the 'liberating forces'.
Das Boot and Band Of Brothers are probably my two favourite war-based pieces of media
I don't see why military corruption should be a hindrance to anyone's career. Just look at Colin Powell. He did a lovely job of covering up the My Lai massacre until someone else spilled the beans, which got him a good position for covering up the Iran-Contra scandal (which of course never came back to haunt anybody) and then spreading some bullshit to the UN about Iraq (and we're back to massacred civilians). Let's pull the threads together a bit.
America's toppling of Saddam is going to lead to far more ethnic cleansing (that's genocide, for your euphemistically impaired) than is already happening on a daily basis in Iraq. And is the UN or any "friendly" country going to march into Iraq to keep the peace after seeing the "good work" the US has made? I certainly doubt it. Look for Syria or Iran in your neighborhood very soon.
Comrade,
I was thinking of another movie that is suppose to be coming out soon that I've heard about through the grapevine and didn't realize this was an '89 movie. So I recant some of my last position.
However, hollywood has had a recent rash of films,since the eighties, about military corruption. It seems that most war films are unbelievably sappy or about corruption of some sort. The sappy ones come off as completely unbelievable, and the corruption type seem more like reality. Rarely is there any good movies that portray things correctly, with out some bias, like Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers and possibly Flags of Our Fathers could be thrown in there.
Alot of these producers and writers for these movies use the truth of the times loosely, and have people act as they believe people in the military act (which is so stereotypical of people that have never joined). I guess these movies hit a nerve for me, just as african-american watching a movie about blacks that was done all stereotypical (and claimed it was truth).
I might try out the movie you mentioned, as your recommendation, and see for myself, as I went off a little without really knowing the full basis of the movie.
FrogChorus wrote: Well I suppose if you only watch half the film then it's anti-military.... I suppose it could also deter people to look into US Army atrocities in Vietnam and see how dodgy the army were in real life...
I do agree with the earlier point that there is different standards for war criminals. US/British/Allied forces that commit atrocities should be dealt with and court-martialled or punished accordingly. It's a pity that that cannot be done with a media circus and done properly. It doesn't set a very good example nor make the Iraqi/wherever population feel safe in the hands of the 'liberating forces'.
Das Boot and Band Of Brothers are probably my two favourite war-based pieces of media
Rarely have we tried individuals of war, even from other countries, for war crimes small in size. Almost all the people tried were involved in large events. I don't see Abu Grab or Haditha fitting that catagory. If we had a unit doing total genocide over there, I truely believe we would send them up to see a tribunal.
EdelBrock wrote: I might try out the movie you mentioned, as your recommendation, and see for myself, as I went off a little without really knowing the full basis of the movie.
I think the film has some weaknesses, particularly in the acting (Penn just chews up the scenery, and it is a bit like watching Marty McFly in Vietnam....) but there are parts that work. Overall, not a "great" film, but I do think it tries to portray the issue without being anti-war or anti-military. If you watch it, keep an eye on the background in the village when the unit is under fire-- you'll see the villagers helping the Viet Cong, so the film definitely isn't going for a one-sided simplistic portrayal of Vietnam.
Comrade, A good movie that shows human quality in war, and how the human personality can change not only the person, but the battle is When Trumpets Fade.
Though I believe there is a slight anti-military sentiment to the movie, I think it is really good. One of the best, if not the best I have ever seen.
It was a Showtime movie that is on dvd, but might be a bit difficult to find....but definately worth the search. Not sappy at all. Actually just talking about it makes me want to watch it again. Think I'm going to go do just that!
