The biggest "LIES" the movies ever told me. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The biggest "LIES" the movies ever told me.



Worf101
07-08-2004, 07:09 AM
I was sitting in the reading room this morning (the Bathroom for you uninitiated) when I got to thinking about how many war/historical movies I love that bear absolutely NO resemblance to historical fact. Some wartime films can be excused as propaganda to help win the war, the rest... whew, have no excuse. Here's some films (some I love some I hate) that have a real slim grasp on history.

1. "They Died With Their Boots On" (1942) - Errr, a sober Custer who actually loved Indians and respected them all the while he was killing them. The real Custer was a brutal, ignorant, glory seeking, prima dona who felt the rules didn't apply to him. He often went AWOL to visit his wife and before the Little Big Horn was inches from being cashiered by the Army. It is her we have to thank for the enduring myths about this man and his death.

2. "Wake Island" (1942) - According to this film Geoffrey "Artillery" Caton and his men fought a last stand to equal the Spartans at Philipi (sp). In reality, after the Marines and civilians heorically beat off the first Japanese landing, Caton, who'd been hiding in his bunker, came out and ordered the entire garrison to surrender. To be fair he was facing a far superior force but if the lie has to be this big, better to tell nothing at all. Great performance by Brian Donlevy as Caton.

3. "The Battle of the Bulge" (1965) - First big screen technocolor movie I ever saw as a kid.. Great stuff yeah.... if you don't read any history books about it. Wrong units, wrong Generals, stereotypes of the worse stripe on all sides all topped off with the largest, most fictious tank battle ever put on film. There were some great performances though. Fonda was magnificent as was Robert Shaw as Herr Hessler. But my fave has to be Charles Bronson as Maj. Wolenski. He gives a speech about what they should do with Germany after the war that has been cut from the film over the years. The kind of speech a Pole would give about the Germans.

4. "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1936) - Errol Flynn and Mike Curtiz at it again. This time they concoct the most outrageous backstory as to why 600 men rode to "certain death" on the Balaklava Heights. In this movie they charged for revenge, glory etc... In real life it was a blunder and despite what you were told, most of the men who made the charge, lived to continue the fight.

5. "Pearl Harbor" (2001) - How one film can foul up The Eagle Squadon's exploits in the Battle of Britain, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Dolittle Raid all in under three hours is absolutely amazing to me. The only "true" part of the film was the exploits of Dorey Miller played by Cuba Gooding. Miller did man a gun who's crew had been killed as was credited with downing 4 to 5 Zero's. The rest... is pure hollywood hogwash.

Well, that's my story....

Da Worfster :cool:

kexodusc
07-08-2004, 08:44 AM
Great thread Worfster!!!

Pearl Harbor was pretty terrible. What a let down.
My only real beef with the movies is everything World War II related. I did my (first) Master's degree (not to sound like snob, because lord help me, I ain't smart) on the subject. Most historical evidence, and the generally accepted facts in the rest of the world, is that Hitler was on his way to losing before we got involved, we merely accelerated the process a bit. I was always taught in school that we were the deciding factor. I spent a summer in London, and most British people I met are very offended by claims that the good ol' USA won the war for the Allies. Can't say I blame them, really.
But, seriously, who isn't victim of a little self-glorification every now and then? Makes for good movies, as long as Ben Affleck isn't in them.

skeptic
07-08-2004, 09:31 AM
How about Farenheit 9-11. The historians and pundits are already tearing this one to shreds as a pack of lies. Moore should stick to filmmaking and leave history to historians. I'm sure he'll make a pile of money though. Finally some garbage we can export to France for a change instead of always importing theirs.

kexodusc
07-08-2004, 09:54 AM
How about Farenheit 9-11. The historians and pundits are already tearing this one to shreds as a pack of lies. Moore should stick to filmmaking and leave history to historians. I'm sure he'll make a pile of money though. Finally some garbage we can export to France for a change instead of always importing theirs.

I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but Farenheit 9-11 was just too much for me... It was just plain insulting to any intelligent human being.

Moore: Don't bore us with rediculous conspiracy theories based on loose facts that you've twisted and mangled beyond reality. Bush doesn't need your help to lose the election.

I'm really nervous that too many people will accept that movie as a documentary instead of a mockumentary. After all, if it's on TV, it's got to be real, right?

Worf101
07-08-2004, 10:19 AM
I haven't seen it yet, so I've no opinion. As for Mr. Moore's work I loved "Roger & Me". I thought Bowling for Columbine was "so so". I did NOT like what he did to Mr. Heston at the end. I'm no right-wing, beer swilling, gun nut... but there's a thing called basic respect and there are things you don't do in another man's home. Simple as that.

I've no opinion on 911 cause I've not seen it. I didn't start this as a "political" thread about the current President or Moore's film... I was just making observations on films I'd seen is all.

Da Worfster

kexodusc
07-08-2004, 10:29 AM
I haven't seen it yet, so I've no opinion. As for Mr. Moore's work I loved "Roger & Me". I thought Bowling for Columbine was "so so". I did NOT like what he did to Mr. Heston at the end. I'm no right-wing, beer swilling, gun nut... but there's a thing called basic respect and there are things you don't do in another man's home. Simple as that.

I've no opinion on 911 cause I've not seen it. I didn't start this as a "political" thread about the current President or Moore's film... I was just making observations on films I'd seen is all.

Da Worfster
(Not to hi-jack your great thread, Worf)
It's the respect part that bugs me the most about the 9-11. Whether I like it or not, Bush is my President. There are parts of the movie that really get you thinking, but in the end, I just didn't find it appropriate. It felt too much like I was watching anti-Bush propoganda, coming from a "holier-than-thou" film director with a personal agenda, instead of an artist or film-making american exercise free-speech or whatever.

Mostly, it was a theater full of young people that would rather take the film as gospel truth than think for themselves that bothered me, I think. I guess you could argue that's not Moore's fault, but he has a certain responsibility, I think.

From a purely entertainment point of view - I won't lie and say I wasn't glued to the movie.

I encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.

For the record, I consider my self a centralist, beer-swilling, Blues-nut.

Lexmark3200
07-08-2004, 11:35 AM
I totally agree, Worf, regarding Pearl Harbor, thats for sure.....I have this on my want list but ONLY for the demo quality sound I keep hearing about regarding the DVD....otherwise, what a WASTE of nearly three hours (is that correct?)....the whole love triangle thing was stupid and complete nonesense......GOD FORBID Hollywood churns out a film based on HISTORICAL ACCURACIES without some god damnned love story attached to it like Titanic or Pearl Harbor....they are afraid that the majority of numskulls that pile into theaters today and stuff their fat asses with "THE TUB" of popcorn just wont sit through something without some sappy love story attached to it....so straight-up history films, holding respect to what ACTUALLY HAPPENED during these events, get thrown out the window....

How about these for inaccurate historical documentation, as well? (granted, I have both of these in my collection for their action value and DVD presentations): The Patriot and U-571. I have read that both of these are horribly inaccurate in the events they portray.

eisforelectronic
07-09-2004, 04:02 AM
All the sound effects in U-571 were recorded using the actual items to make those sounds. At least something was accurate in that movie. Also 8 chnl SDDS was originally chosen for the movie's audio because the 5 front chnls would provide greater total sound pressure for the depth charge scenes.

IsmaVA
07-09-2004, 04:45 AM
I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but Farenheit 9-11 was just too much for me... It was just plain insulting to any intelligent human being.

Moore: Don't bore us with rediculous conspiracy theories based on loose facts that you've twisted and mangled beyond reality. Bush doesn't need your help to lose the election.

I'm really nervous that too many people will accept that movie as a documentary instead of a mockumentary. After all, if it's on TV, it's got to be real, right?

About F 9/11 . . . Moore opinions are definitively on the propaganda side and his movie maybe 90% opinion and a mere 10% fact . . .however, there is a $10K for anybody who can point out one factual error . . .so far no takers . . .

skeptic
07-09-2004, 05:00 AM
Sometimes lies can be propagated not by what is said but by what is omitted or by taking facts out of context to trick the viewer into drawing the opposite conclusion than he otherwise would. Moviemakers and other storytellers are excellent at that technique. That's why we leave history to professional historians and not to partisans wanting to influence current political debate by trying to disguise opinion as history.

kexodusc
07-09-2004, 05:10 AM
Sometimes lies can be propagated not by what is said but by what is omitted or by taking facts out of context to trick the viewer into drawing the opposite conclusion than he otherwise would. Moviemakers and other storytellers are excellent at that technique. That's why we leave history to professional historians and not to partisans wanting to influence current political debate by trying to disguise opinion as history.

I would just add that there is an infamous sick-o Nazi sympathizer organization in Europe that has indisputable proof that the Holocaust did not occur, with a similar cash prize for disproving their factual evidence. It's been around since the 50's or 60's.
Just goes to show the power of manipulation, and how dangerous ignorance can be.

Hey, we all believed Oswald killed JFK, too. Funny, didn't a movie change that opinion and even prompt the government to accelerate the de-classifcation of those files by some 20 - 30 years?

IsmaVA
07-09-2004, 05:16 AM
Yeap, I would agree with both of you (Skeptic and Kexodusc) . . .however, Kex comment only proves that nobody can really cry "Lies, Lies, Lies!!!" either way . . .


In the end, it is just a matter of opinions . . .

skeptic
07-09-2004, 05:36 AM
"In the end, it is just a matter of opinions"

NO!
Historians look at ALL of the facts and try to weave them into a complete tapestry with the advantage of hindsight and time to reflect on them and what they mean. They may have different interpretations of what different people were thinking, they may disagree on nuances, and sometimes the facts may be incomplete leading them to the admission if they are honest that unless and until further evidence is uncovered, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions. Moore and those like him have done none of this. They have a political agenda for the here and now, make no bones about it, and try to present this biased view as factual history. This alone makes them a pack of liars.

kexodusc
07-09-2004, 05:44 AM
This may not be quite the same, but I really get pissed off when movie directors re-write a super-hero's history to their own liking.
When did Spiderman get web making organs in his hands? What happened to the little web shooter devices?
And The Hulk...let's not go there.

My all time biggest let down was "Masters of the Universe". Other than the loose character likeness, and use of names and images, there was NOTHING He-Man about that movie. Dolf Lundgren...Pffff!!!!

IsmaVA
07-09-2004, 05:47 AM
My friend, being a skeptic myself I don't want to get into a useless argument, but Historians are nothing more that the writers of the OFFICAL opinion . . .you would be amazed at the factual differences between "history" as chronicled by historians of different backgrounds.

Yes, Moore has a political agenda, just as everybody else . . . believing that any version of the "facts" is devoid of interpretation, perception and personal mythology is, IMHO, as naive as believing in the tooth fairy.

It is just a matter of choosing who and what to believe . . .

IsmaVA
07-09-2004, 05:50 AM
This may not be quite the same, but I really get pissed off when movie directors re-write a super-hero's history to their own liking.
When did Spiderman get web making organs in his hands? What happened to the little web shooter devices?
And The Hulk...let's not go there.

My all time biggest let down was "Masters of the Universe". Other than the loose character likeness, and use of names and images, there was NOTHING He-Man about that movie. Dolf Lundgren...Pffff!!!!


Yeap, what about the Lara Croft movies (yeap, I know, not quite in the league of Sipdey)?

They completely change the character . . .her background, they way she was raised, the transformation into the tomb raider . . .

Nowadays, I just take it as a new superhero, not even a new version of the old ones. . . :-)

skeptic
07-09-2004, 06:33 AM
Moore has appeared regularly on television lately and said many times publicly with no appologies that he would like to see George Bush defeated in the upcoming election and hopes that this film contributes to that defeat. (Personally I'm not sure who I'm voting for but I don't like people trying to manipulate me this way.)

As for professional historians, not only do they have the perspective of time, often decades or centuries to distance themselves from the emotions of the moment, but if they are worth anything at all, they do extensive research reading private correspondence, diaries, listening to what others who have researched the subject have to say, and put all of the facts in context. Yes sometimes they disagree but as more and more time elapses and the events lose their current edge in the haze of antiquity, they are seen though entirely different eyes. It is amazing how few Republicans now would dream of repealing Social Security or Medicare (although they might like to tinker with them) when just a few decades ago, they denounced them as Socialism. There are very few people left anymore who feel that somehow the United States could have stayed out of World War Two or get worked up over World War One or Prohibition or the Civil War. At the time, these were all hot button issues. The time between then and now distances us from those events and even the most extreme differences that still exist among historians are orders of magnitude less than they were at the time. The facts in most of them are generally accepted, the interpretations may differ. But the discussion is usually scholarly, not passionate. That's what separates historians from pundits and we shouldn't confuse the two. I'm sure most professional historians and even amateur historians would agree.

Worf101
07-09-2004, 06:56 AM
I've only one thing to add on the whole "propaganda" side of my thread (is this my thread? I'm sure I left it here two days ago... :D ).

History is written by the victors (at least military history is) while time may boil down historical events to a basic set of bones, interpretation and deliberate ah... "downplaying" of facts can still lead to widely varied versions of "history". You cannot write the Carthaginian side of the Punic wars because the Romans slaughtered every one of them they could find. Ergo you may never have both sides of every story. My original idea with this thread was how wildly wrong Hollywood can be about some historical events.

Mr. Moore's movie is a sensitive issue because it's NOT about some old battle or war lost in the mists of time but about an event less than 4 years old that we're still dealing with the repercussions of today. I can see why it would raise passions. But as I said before.... I don't discuss movies I have not seen, but you folks that have seen it are free to "have at it". I'll just have some of this here popcorn.

Da Worfster :cool:

Hairsonfire
07-09-2004, 08:42 AM
majority of numskulls that pile into theaters today and stuff their fat asses with "THE TUB" of popcorn


That's great! You elitist snob! I love it!

Swerd
07-09-2004, 09:57 AM
Let's forget the politics of the moment and go back to Worf's original thread. The fact that he has seen and remembers so much about those so called military history movies is impressive.

I'd like to add U-571 to that list. The premise that American agents captured an Enigma coding machine from a sinking German sub is not only a complete fabrication, but it misrepresents the true story. The British, with some critical help from Polish and French secret agents before the war, and after some great efforts of their own, were able to crack the encrypted radio messages that the Germans sent during the war. It was the primary factor in defeating the German submarine effort in the Atlantic. It also played a major role in the success of the Normady invasion. I have heard that British audiences were greatly offended by this movie. It's too bad because the real story would have also made a good movie.

Many of the John Wayne war movies could be added to this list. I don't remember which movie it was, but you can see him now on top of some hill in Korea, surrounded by his bleeding and dying buddies, holding a BAR slung against his hip hollering "I don't care if I'm surrounded by 10,000 blood crazed Chinese! They'll never get away this time!"

The only movie about the military that I ever thought told what military life was really like was The Last Detail (1973). It was not a war movie. Jack Nicholson and Otis Young played two lifers who had to escort a young Randy Quaid from Norfolk to a military prison in New Hampshire. It was sold as a comedy, but left me feeling angry and depressed.

92135011
07-10-2004, 11:38 AM
What about any Steven Segal movies?
Why did a Navy maine SEAL change into a career being a cook for a train? WTF?
How does someone who moves so slow end up breaking everyone's neck?

In LOTR, why doesnt Aragorn and his friends get hurt while everyone dies?
Why doesnt Gandalf use any spells in battle if he is THAT good of a wizard?

kexodusc
07-10-2004, 12:59 PM
The only lie about Steven Segal movies is the one that suggest he's an actor.

eqm
07-10-2004, 02:24 PM
i think it's the "green berets" where john wayne looks out to the sunset with the little boy, and it's on the wrong side of the beach....?

mtrycraft
07-10-2004, 03:38 PM
Great thread Worfster!!!

Pearl Harbor was pretty terrible. What a let down.
My only real beef with the movies is everything World War II related. I did my (first) Master's degree (not to sound like snob, because lord help me, I ain't smart) on the subject. Most historical evidence, and the generally accepted facts in the rest of the world, is that Hitler was on his way to losing before we got involved, we merely accelerated the process a bit. I was always taught in school that we were the deciding factor. I spent a summer in London, and most British people I met are very offended by claims that the good ol' USA won the war for the Allies. Can't say I blame them, really.
But, seriously, who isn't victim of a little self-glorification every now and then? Makes for good movies, as long as Ben Affleck isn't in them.

I am no historian, far from it, but didn't we enter WWII after Dec 7 41? If I understand you, Germany was on its way out by then? Then why did it take so long to end it with an invasion in Normandy?

skeptic
07-10-2004, 05:07 PM
kexodusc, I think your historical account and those of Europeans who say the same are dead wrong. Had the US not entered World War II, the Germans would have won in Europe. They occupied ALL of western and southern Europe from Iberia, through the Balkans, northern Africa, Eastern Europe, and Scandanavia except for Sweden which was neutral. Only the British Isles had held out by December 7, 1941 and then only barely and on American material being shipped to them. Even as late as the Battle of the Bulge, it was not clear that there would be an Allied victory. America was the main force on the western and southern front, and was the supplier of nearly one billion dollars of arms and other material to Stalin without which he would not have been able to fight nearly as effectively. America's entry into the war also took a lot of pressure off the eastern front where the Soviets were fighting. Without America's entry the Germans would have likely overrun them. BTW, that money sent to the USSR was never repaid. And who else was there to fight the Japanese? Did America win the war all by it self? NO. But it played THE major role, 22 million dead Russians notwithstanding. Would the Allies have won without American entry? It's highly doubtful. BTW, Montgommery was a highly overrated and mediocre general. (The French of course as an organized fighting force were useless and their armies collapsed in the blitzkreig very quickly. De Gaulle was a useless windbag. The resistance did contribute however.) As for the Soviets, they were led by the second most incompetent strategist in the entire war, Stalin. It was Stalin who left his country wide open to attack never believing his friend Adolf Hitler with whom he had a treaty would ever stab him in the back. He was lucky to have General Zukov or the Russians would have been defeated. Hitler was of course the absolute worst and the Germans would have done far better had he listened to his Generals who were professional soldiers.. Saddam Hussein made the same mistake in 1991.

kexodusc
07-10-2004, 05:27 PM
Read up on the "Battle of Britain" in 1940, and its significance. Most historians consider this the beginning of the end, two years before the US mounted significant offence.
I'm not downplaying our role...just don't for one minute believe that Hitler hadn't spread himself too thin before we got involved.

On the other hand, we aren't given enough credit for our role in the Pacific.

skeptic
07-10-2004, 06:04 PM
As I recall from about 10,000 programs about the Battle of Britain (more guys died in movies about World War II than died in the actual war itself) it seems to me that Hitler tried to break Britain by bombing it with V1 buzz bombs (early crude cruise missiles) and V2 rockets. These were crude terror weapons which could not be accurately targeted. They just blew up buildings at random. The British people showed their mettle by surviving this attack and demonstrating their will to fight on. What this has to do with the actual military progress of the war or how it could even conceivably be called a turning point is beyond me. Please explain what this had to do with Britain actually winning the military battles which eventually defeated Hitler. I'm sure you'd agree that Britain could not have pulled off the D-Day invasion without America. They hardly had much of an air force until America showed up. They were not only not winning the Battle of the Atlantic, but their lifeline was the shipping from America which kept them alive at all. Then how would they have defeated the Germans? We bailed them out just as we did in World War I and in the Cold War. At least they stood by us in Iraq. Well at least Tony Blair did. I don't think most of the rest of them were happy about it.

kexodusc
07-11-2004, 03:57 AM
Those 10,000 programs are pretty vague recollections at best, then. Battle of Britain was Hitler's first defeat. It crippled his air force, and resulted in numerous counter-attacks on Germany from the U.K. It was hardly civilians surving bombs.
Granted, Britain probably wouldn't have won a full fledged invasion of Germany without the rest of the world's help, especially ours, but that comes down to the definition of victory then.

Skeptic, why are you so pissed off at France? Since our intelligence, military, and leaders have basically admitted incompetence and started the blame game with the whole Iraq thing, wouldn't that justify France sitting out? Seems to me if anything, we owe them an apology for not trusting their clearly superior intelligence and threat assessments.

skeptic
07-11-2004, 06:25 AM
"Seems to me if anything, we owe them an apology for not trusting their clearly superior intelligence and threat assessments."

What the hell are you talking about kexodusc? Their intelligence believed the same thing ours did. They didn't want to go to war with Saddam Hussein because they were making a tens of billions off of the graft and illegal deals they were making around the UN trade restrictions. The bribes went all the way up to Chirac's inner circle of cronies. Furthermore, they will do anything to challenge the US because their inferior civilization has waned to the point of near insignificance. They still have dreams of the way it was a couple of hundred years ago. I lived in France. I know France. France is no friend of the United States.

As for Britain winning the war aginst Germany you must be joking? It took the American submarine fleet a couple of years after we entered in the Battle of the Atlantic to kill off enough U-boats just to keep the supply lines going. Montgommery was bailed out by American troops again and again and again. On his own he probably would have been killed or captured sooner or later. Even with the vast American Air Force combining with The RAF to pound Germany day and night, losses of aircraft were immense. Had the RAF had to go it alone against German air defences, they would have been completely anhillated. At one point, it got so bad that the life expectancy of an RAF pilot in active combat was 11 days. They were running out of pilots even faster than they were running out of planes. No they could not have defeated Hitler on the ground or in the air themselves in continental Europe and were it not for the American navy and merchant marine, the U boats would have strangled them. Without America's help they could not win and Germany could not lose.

kexodusc
07-11-2004, 06:57 AM
"Seems to me if anything, we owe them an apology for not trusting their cleaAl Samoud 2 rly superior intelligence and threat assessments."

What the hell are you talking about kexodusc? Their intelligence believed the same thing ours did. They didn't want to go to war with Saddam Hussein because they were making a tens of billions off of the graft and illegal deals they were making around the UN trade restrictions. .
10's of billions? WTF? Making numbers up now? Why stop there?
France's intelligence only confirmed the existance of those "Al Samoud 2" missiles and other NON-WMD type weaponry...yes, in violation of the UN restrictions on Iraq...but definitely not bio or nuclear weoponry that was capable of reaching America or even France.


The bribes went all the way up to Chirac's inner circle of cronies. Furthermore, they will do anything to challenge the US because their inferior civilization has waned to the point of near insignificance. They still have dreams of the way it was a couple of hundred years ago. I lived in France. I know France. France is no friend of the United States..
You won't get an argument from me on any of these points. But to put things into perspective, I lived in France, too. Most of the French don't hate America, far from it. Most could give a rats ass either way. The politicians...well that's another matter. But even you can't deny that the US is far from squeaky clean when it comes to bribes and the UN or that there were financial considerations in the decision to go to war. We can't be hypocritical here. We insult and make life miserable for them as much as they do us. France isn't so different from us in this regard.


As for Britain winning the war aginst Germany you must be joking? This I never said, or suggested...shame on you for suggesting otherwise...are you looking for a Flame War or something? Slow down. This discussion began because too many movies make it seem like the USA single-handedly won WWII...U-571 for example...The fact is, most scholars and historians are in agreement that Hitler would have lost one way or another without our direct involvement with troops and weaponry. I stand by this claim. I won't speculate as to how the war would have ended, or how many years or decades it would have taken. Hitler took it on the chin in going to Britain and Russia too soon though, suffered pretty bad losses, and was not going to rule the world or even all of Europe at this point...It would have been impossible for Hitler to win no matter how many u-boats he had. Sure, Germany was a fortress that was hard to penetrate...and definitely, Britain never would have marched into Hitler's back yard without America. I never said they could.


Without America's help they could not win and Germany could not lose.
At best this is impossible to prove, at worst, it is just wrong.

skeptic
07-11-2004, 07:39 AM
I remind you or inform you in case you didn't know, it was the French that built the nuclear reactor Israel bombed and if Israel hadn't bombed it, by 1991 Iraq would surely have had nuclear weapons.

Even if France didn't have 5 million arabs living within its borders whom it has to cater to politically in some degree, it always has been anti American and anti Israeli. That goes back as Far as DeGaulle who BTW also tried to break up Canada when he stood in front of the crowd in Quebec and shouted the famous phrase "Viva Quebec Libre." You don't have to be a logician to put all of the pieces together including the very words of Chirac himself to come to the conclusion that France will oppose the US at every opportunity just for the sake of being a pain in the rear. That alone was why going to the UN Security Council was a total waste of time. Russia and to some degree China are the same.

As for losing the war to Germany, I don't care what kind of spin overly generous historians sympathetic to Britain put on it. It was an isolated group of islands with not much in the way of resources up against a vast continental power with hundreds of millions of slaves producing for them. Had America remained truely neutral Britain's resources would have dwindled to nothing. And most important, like the French, they weren't very smart or they never would have gotten into the second world war in the first place. They sowed the seeds of that war and nurtured them themselves. They have noone else to blame for it. ( I thought you said you wrote a PHD thesis on this, what happened?)

kexodusc
07-11-2004, 10:17 AM
PHD thesis? WTF? Where'd you pull that out of? France trying to divide and conquer Canada. I guess that makes sense.

Alright Skeptic, you win, I was wrong. The UK would be nothing if not for us and the world would be speaking German. I withdraw any earlier claims to the contrary.

skeptic
07-11-2004, 11:45 AM
America bailed Europe out three times in the twentieth centruy. The last time took almost fifty years, cost trillions of dollars of American taxpayer money and at one point nearly resulted in the end of all life on earth. (That was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.) And what is the gratitude they show for it? They treat us like $hiT. Our grandparents would be turning over in their graves if they knew what kind of crap they dish out to us and what we take from them. Frankly, the next time, I say let them go to hell. And judging from the pending collapse in their economies, their aging populations and demographic time bombs, and the large number of legal and illegal immigrants they are getting whom they desparately need but hate, it won't be long.

woodman
07-11-2004, 12:15 PM
Moore has appeared regularly on television lately and said many times publicly with no appologies that he would like to see George Bush defeated in the upcoming election and hopes that this film contributes to that defeat. (Personally I'm not sure who I'm voting for but I don't like people trying to manipulate me this way.)

Crikeys, skep ... I thought that you had more of a brain than most of the monkeys that populate boards such as these. At least most of what you post conveys that impression. Don't know who you're gonna vote for? C'mon get real here. So Moore has said publicly that he wants to dethrone the Chimp and made this movie to help that scenario to come to fruition. God bless him. I for one applaud his honesty in the matter. He makes no bones about the fact that he considers Dubya a buffoon who is sitting in the WhiteHouse illegally through manipulation and deception and has absolutely no credentials of any sort that would make him eligible to be president. Additionally, he's dishonest, unscrupulous, conniving, greedy, deceitful, manipulative, and stoooopid besides! He's single-handedly taken this country of ours 37 GIANT steps backwards, and his defeat is IMO, the most important political event of my lifetime. I haven't seen Moore's latest film, but as ismaVA pointed out, there's an offer on the table to anyone who can offer any proof that anything presented in the film is not true. So, to call it a pack of lies is one humongous stretch, IMO.


It is amazing how few Republicans now would dream of repealing Social Security or Medicare (although they might like to tinker with them) when just a few decades ago, they denounced them as Socialism.

From where I sit, I think that most Republicans would like very much to do away with both of those programs, although they wouldn't say so publicly. That's reason enough in my book to vote against all of them every chance I get. The fact that they have the support of the "Christian Right" is to my mind the joke of the century - only I'm not laughing.

skeptic
07-11-2004, 01:00 PM
I don't need you to teach me to hate Republicans. That came from just watching the evening news night after night as trash like Newt Gingrich, Dick Army, and Henry Hyde tried to destroy President Clinton without caring that they were destroying America with him. Ted Kennedy who should have spent his life in jail instead of the Senate notwithstanding, it took me a lot longer to learn to hate Democrats with the same degree of contempt. If nothing else, Clinton betrayed his supporters and the country with exactly the same brand of stupidity as Gary Hart betrayed his supporters. And that spineless fool who said he invented the internet promised at the Democratic convention he would fight for me and all the other Americans. Hell, he couldn't fight for a 5 year old little boy who floated up on a log in Florida. Gore stood idly by while he was sent back to the slave prison called Cuba without so much as a hearing before a family court. He couldn't fight for himself when the Republicans stole the election right out from under him. I WILL NOT read the history of this era the way CNN, FOX or MSNBC wants me to interpret it. I see these self serving little men for what they are and they all disgust me. All birds of a feather. It's a wonder the terrorists haven't destroyed our country already. These midgets have no guts, no mettle, and no sense of history. I'm not voting for anybody. There isn't a one in the lot qualified for the job this time. Dubya too although sad to say it, he is the best of a sorry lot. At least he didn't try to destroy Israel the way Clinton did. Well not after I and a lot of other people wrote to him two years ago to tell him to "cool it."

IsmaVA
07-11-2004, 03:01 PM
There is a lot of fanatism in this post . . .

A couple of books that I think everybody should read:

The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski a very interesting pre-9/11 (about 3 years before) book in which the "roadmap" to the U.S. world supremacy is explained.

The War on Freedom by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, not really a book, but a compilation of documents about the stream of info leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

A quote from Jonathan Swift: "It is useless to attempt to reason a person out of something they were never reasoned into."

skeptic
07-12-2004, 06:20 AM
Which politician did I mischaracterize?

Troy
07-12-2004, 06:57 AM
What Woodman said.

I'm utterly fascinated with how F911 polarizes EVERYONE. I saw it last week and it was one of the saddest films I have ever seen.

For a few months I've been thainking about, and F911 confirmed, that once the soldiers start coming home disillusioned, THAT will be the downfall of this war. Just like VietNam. Expect the draft to be started up within months if W gets re-elected.

Personally, I think (just as Moore does) all politicians are scumbags that are only in it for the $. Moore's films have always been about the fact that people that run our country and our country's industry (oh, same thing, sorry) only care about the money, not about their constituents.

Was Moore over the top with his editing to pull heartstrings? Absolutely. He's always done it. But the footage of the woman selling "rabbits for food or pets" in Roger and Me was funny (uncomfortable, but funny) and footage of us slaughtering Iraqi civillians in F911 is decidedly NOT funny. A lot of what he compiled was inappropriate, but if you can't show proof that Moore was wrong about all that $ coming from the Saudis to the Bush corporate coffers or that W froze like a deer in headlights for 7 minutes on 9/11 in a Florida grade school reading class, then it's hard to buy people that constantly say "It's all a pack of lies", because the fact is, no one has proved that it is. Yeah, someone call me when that 10k for finding factual errors gets paid out.

I think that the people that run our government ARE playing us like violins, manipulating us with fear and vague threats while they take billions from the Saudis to fight the Saudi war for the promise of cheap oil under the thin veil of WMD threats and bogus connections of Iraq to Al-Queda. If you choose to think that this is untrue, they you are just being a Pollyanna. As a public, we don't care. We'd rather argue about stupid things like gay mariage and watch football. We ARE the Romans and that sucks. Yeah, F911 was extremely disheartening and depressing, but I think everybody should see it.

skeptic
07-12-2004, 08:59 AM
If there was credible evidence that the policies of the United States as formulated in the White House were in some way influenced by a foreign government or prominent foreign citizens for money, you can be sure that there would be a deafening outcry among Democrats for a special prosecutor to look into it to see if another impeachment trial is warranted. We had a tremendous row over foreign influence from China in the Clinton administration and as I recall, someone was prosecuted. If lying about sex in a sworn deposition rises to the level of impeachment, foreign influence peddling certainly would as well. (If every man who lied about sex in a courtroom was tried and convicted of perjury, half the male population of America would be in jail.) Given that so far there has been no investigation and no talk of an investigation, I have to assume that Moore's movie is all a pile of crap based on speculation, wishful thinking, and nothing else. Since he answers to nobody, why should he be taken seriously?

Bryan
07-12-2004, 09:02 AM
Back on topic:

Independence Day: That a guy with an Apple laptop is able to take down an alien civilization with a computer virus. Forget trying to decipher the other alien software programs.

dean_martin
07-12-2004, 03:14 PM
If there was credible evidence that the policies of the United States as formulated in the White House were in some way influenced by a foreign government or prominent foreign citizens for money, you can be sure that there would be a deafening outcry among Democrats for a special prosecutor to look into it to see if another impeachment trial is warranted. We had a tremendous row over foreign influence from China in the Clinton administration and as I recall, someone was prosecuted. If lying about sex in a sworn deposition rises to the level of impeachment, foreign influence peddling certainly would as well. (If every man who lied about sex in a courtroom was tried and convicted of perjury, half the male population of America would be in jail.) Given that so far there has been no investigation and no talk of an investigation, I have to assume that Moore's movie is all a pile of crap based on speculation, wishful thinking, and nothing else. Since he answers to nobody, why should he be taken seriously?

no investigation = Moore's movie is a pile of crap? I'm sorry but shortly after 9-11 a former teacher and friend of mine showed me many newspaper articles documenting the ties between the Bush and bin Laden families. I remember one from 1997 that reported a meeting between the Bushes and bin Ladens in Texas planning a pipeline through Afghanistan. The ties are there. The only issue is the extent of influence. The problem as I see it is that we've elected politicians who do more for corporations than individuals. It IS all about the money - get as much as we can now, spend as much as we can now, consume as much as we can now with no regard for the future - it's the "I'm gonna get mine in the here and now" attitude fostered by corporate lobbyists that's currently driving this country along with petty jealousies over someone like Michael Moore making tons of money and garnering fame without having to get his by the sweat of his brow. Even more indicative of the petty jealousies is the constant attack on our civil justice system by a Republican Congress at the urging of insurance companies. A doctor may amputate the wrong leg or both breasts because of a misread radiology report but the real victim's damages for pain, suffering, emotional harm, etc. should be taken out of the jury's hands (you and your neighbors) and capped by politicians??!!! That deserves a big WTF! All of a sudden the doctor becomes the victim because his insurance premiums are going up? Please! The doctor and his/her insurance company are the haves and the amputee is the have not. Who's voice is louder? It's all about the money. Back on point - 14 of 19 from Saudi Arabia? What have we done about that? Who would suffer from a Saudi shakedown?

And, how the hell are we going to get out of Iraq? If I believe the in-depth news reports as opposed to the conclusory reports, turning over control to the Iraqis ain't gonna make a damn bit of difference. Bombings are being orchestrated by foreigners using Iraq as the testing ground for world-wide Jihad. It's not just Saddam sympathists/supporters any more. I'm from a small town. 4 men from my church and numerous others from my community are in Iraq now. My questions about our policies and decisions are in their interests yet some (mostly Republicans) would question my patriotism. Hopefully many will wake up by election day. I feel better about the Kerry ticket with Edwards on it. I haven't seen Moore's movie, yet. I enjoyed Roger and Me and the Big One, but had mixed feelings about Bowling.

BTW, skeptic, if that's really your name, how can you compare a Republican Congress/maniacal special prosecutor going after Clinton to the present climate? We know the impeachment effort was just plain stupid and vindictive (although it made good tv.)

datarush
07-13-2004, 07:29 AM
Gladiator is a great movie to watch and has some interesting historical details. The premise is totally wrong, however, in that Commodus only lasted 8-9 months as emperor. He was around for 12 years before they got rid of him. It'd be like having Clinton around for another term! It's weird that for all the 7-800 years of Roman history they can't come up with another story. Gladiator is a rehash of the old Fall of the Roman Empire movie, which had its own set of inaccuracies.

Crunchyriff
07-25-2004, 03:49 PM
Truly, if the USA hadn't entered WWII, the entire European continent would be eating sauerkraut, speaking German, and shouting "Zieg Hiel!" to this very day.

Crunchyriff
07-25-2004, 04:05 PM
Personally, I think (just as Moore does) all politicians are scumbags that are only in it for the $. Moore's films have always been about the fact that people that run our country and our country's industry (oh, same thing, sorry) only care about the money, not about their constituents.
Don't kid yourself. Moore's a shill, and he's a bigger part of the problem than the politicians themselves. BTW, you don't think Moore is making movies just to make a buck? Moore is in fact a politician himself, he just hides behind the moniker "film maker".

The biggest joke about his new "documentary" movie is the uttter fabrications and severe twistings that he passes off as "facts"; and when recently confronted by a news agency about them, he said this: " yeah, I made most of that up. SO WHAT?"

What a gem.

As far as GW's alleged "freezing" for 7 minutes- I think he displayed proper composure in that setting. What on earth was dropping everything, running off and scaring a bunch of kids in the process going to accomplish? Both towers were already doomed.

The same people who complain about the alleged " GW freeezing at school" are the same ones who didn't have a problem with Clinton continuing his golf game when interrupted with serious news on the green; nor do they have a problem that Clinton lied his fanny off to save his bacon. At least the American Bar Association had enough courage and character to revoke his license to practice law.....

What I really wish is that all those leftist whackos (Streisand, Sheen, etc) that promised to leave the US if GW got elected, would have really meant what they said. We, as a nation, would be much better off without those of their ilk.

"now back to our regularly scheduled topic."