backtop

Print 257 comment(s) - last by Major HooHaa.. on Jan 17 at 1:07 PM
USMC public affairs not please with plot of Avatar

James Cameron's Avatar has already grossed $1 billion at the box office, but the popular film has upset some military officials. Col. Bryan Salas, United States Marine Corps Director of Public Afffairs, wrote an open letter criticizing the film and its director.

Salas slams the movie since it reportedly "takes sophomoric shots at our military culture and uses the lore of the Marine Corps and over-the-top stereotyping of Marine warriors to set the context for the screenplay.  This does a disservice to our Corps of Marines and the publics' understanding of their Corps."

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, the USMC and U.S. Army have strived to keep their images intact due to past incidents.

"Let's view Avatar for what it is, a leap in the wizadry of cinema, a digital fantasy and a vehicle for a filmmaker to make a statement, but not emblematic of the Marines who honorably fight and fall to win our nation's real battles today."

What are your thoughts on the movie?  Does it hurt the perception of military culture, or is Col Salas barking up the wrong tree?


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Huh?
By Mondochiwan on 1/12/2010 7:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Avatar was about a mining conglomerate and their hired mercenaries. What on Earth (literally) does the USMC have to do with this? I'm very confused. If the film was made by an Australian director would the Australian Army be upset?

I think this guy is trying to find a soapbox.




RE: Huh?
By BPB on 1/12/2010 7:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
Plenty of folks I know had the same thought the USMC officer relayed. This film was an obvious slam on the US military and big business. My nephew in the Seabees did not appreciate the portrayal of the vets. The story sucked big time, but the special effects are easily the best ever. But the story could have been written by some Beverly Hills High kid looking to please his Tim Robins / Susan Sarandon type parents (I know, they split up, but you get the picture, no pun intended).


RE: Huh?
By nibathy on 1/12/2010 8:28:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yea I think more or less your taking a message from the movie to suit your own purpose, than interpreting what the Director intended.

I mean, did you not notice the plot is nearly identical to that of Pocahontas?


RE: Huh?
RE: Huh?
By SiliconAddict on 1/13/2010 4:59:43 PM , Rating: 5
Yah and its Ferngully, and its Dances with Wolves which is Lawrence of Arabia. The fact is that Avatar is a rehash of themes, none of which are unique. And lets be blunt. When Star Wars came out it was also lambasted by critics, and yet the film going audience obviously approved of the movie. And here we are today and Star Wars is considered a classic.
The people bitching about Avatar are people who have nothing else to do. These are the same people who are holding up District 9 as the perfect movie, even though it has shades of Alien Nation in it along with a half dozen other stories. But hey. It wasn't a big name director so its not "in" to trash it.
Do I think Avatar was perfect? Hell no. IMHO the character development wasn't near what Cameron usually does with his movies, and as such I never really "cared" about any of the characters. However plot wise? IMHO it was fine. The fact that there is so much controversy over the plot (Read: Its racist, its anti government, its anti big business, its a right wing plot, its anti-spiritual (So says the Vatican) its [insert your pet peeve about it here.]) shows that yes. Cameron can still make films that make people think.

here ya go http://movies.nytimes.com/1977/05/26/movies/movies...

quote:
hat's about all the plot that anyone of voting age should be required to keep track of. The story of "Star Wars" could be written on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Bible. It is, rather, a breathless succession of escapes, pursuits, dangerous missions, unexpected encounters, with each one ending in some kind of defeat until the final one.


RE: Huh?
By BPB on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By Spivonious on 1/12/2010 9:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
Except they were mercenaries, not marines. Although I have to agree I thought they were marines too until my wife pointed out that they were working for a mining company.


RE: Huh?
By djkrypplephite on 1/12/2010 10:58:00 AM , Rating: 5
They were made to look like mercenaries taking orders from the company, but Cameron made a point of showing that they were USMC and were being used as mercenaries.


RE: Huh?
By delphinus100 on 1/12/2010 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 1
Indeed. I understood they were paid soldiers all the way through, but couldn't help thinking that they had access to a crapload of very high-end weaponry (more than Marines might actually get, in fact), for corporate mercs...

And, it's easy to see how someone could lose the distinction (if they got it at all) between these guys, and actual military, as events progress.


RE: Huh?
By cludinsk on 1/12/2010 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 5
Blackwater/USMC, what's the difference anymore? When we outsource core functions of our military to the private sector how is anyone supposed to tell them apart? And at the beginning of the second Iraq invasion many US troops didn't even have body armor, I bet the subcontractors were better outfitted.


RE: Huh?
By SavagePotato on 1/12/2010 3:42:23 PM , Rating: 5
What's funny is compared to Blackwater and friends they are portrayed in a rather positive light. There was no raping of women on same side as well as the other side, or any of the other atrocities and nonsense defense contractors get away with.(though attempting to rape 10 foot tall women that are 3x as strong as you on a planet you can't breathe on probably wouldn't go so well.)

They weren't portrayed as being run by a crazy christian lunatic that thinks he is fighting a holy war like Blackwater either.

All in all, I would say Avatar was pretty tame compared to real life.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SavagePotato on 1/12/2010 5:01:40 PM , Rating: 5
It's far from made up.

It was alleged by former employees and I quote from the news story...

"Prince views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe."

Blackwater is corrupt from top to bottom, The UN was at least founded on noble goals.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SavagePotato on 1/12/2010 6:37:22 PM , Rating: 5
If you are trying to construct a who would you rather have scenario between crazy fundies and radical muslims the answer is I would rather have neither.

To paraphrase Robert Smith in an interview I enjoyed. "I would like to see the world do without religion just for a day to see how it would be without it."


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By LostInLine on 1/13/2010 12:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
Alger Hiss at least helped write them:
"Hiss also helped found the United Nations, as an organizer of the conferences that laid its foundation and drafted its charter and as chief adviser to the U.S. delegation at the first meeting of the General Assembly in 1946."
http://www.times.com/books/97/03/09/reviews/hiss-o...

Who was Alger Hiss:
"Though Alger Hiss, a U.S. State Department official, was accused of spying for the Soviet Union and imprisoned, he was never convicted of espionage per se."
"In 1996, shortly after Hiss's death, a collection of Venona decrypts was declassified." ... "Analysts at the National Security Agency have gone on record asserting that Ales could only have been Alger Hiss."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_hiss.html


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SavagePotato on 1/12/2010 6:34:15 PM , Rating: 5
Problems.

Blackwater is not the US marines, much like the mercenaries in Avatar were not marines.

The leader was aledged to be a crazy Christian crusader by former employees in a scandal which is quoted above. Go look it up It's easy to find.

Crazy Christians scare me just as much as crazy Muslims.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SavagePotato on 1/12/2010 9:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately they are in a dangerous position of power in the most powerful nation on earth.

The thought of a nuclear powered crazy christian leader like sara palin making it to president is not only scarier than any muslim, but frighteningly possible.

The chances of me dying to a muslim bomber are far less likely to me than the chances of dying from fallout in a nuclear confrontation started by some insane US christian leader.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Carl B on 1/12/2010 10:18:18 PM , Rating: 5
Of course you are.

I'll note that the cities that would be nuked/bombed/whatever in this country are cities that are generally liberal in their bent. So conservatives can do us all a favor and let 'liberals' be the arbiters of our own fates. No one's going to be setting the bio-weapon off in rural Nebraska, for instance, so... let "real America" preach and watch Palin expound on her philosophies while 'populated' America deals with its own very real - and not existential - threats. I think that's the most conservative of philosophies in and of itself, isn't it? Mind your own affairs, so to speak.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/2010 2:55:21 PM , Rating: 1
that's right, ignore history... because you know better this time it's going to be different....
I like how I get marked down for pointing out the truth and how history is starting to repeat it's self again. I guess this must have been what it was like to be someone against the brown shirts in the 1930's.


RE: Huh?
By rmclean816 on 1/13/2010 8:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
these guys are trolls give it up


RE: Huh?
By Samus on 1/12/2010 10:58:59 PM , Rating: 5
I'd say JFK handled it rather well. We're still here, aren't we?


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/2010 9:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
"The chances of me dying to a muslim bomber are far less likely to me than the chances of dying from fallout in a nuclear confrontation started by some insane US christian leader."

Who pollutes your head with such BS? The chance of you dying from fallout in a nuclear confrontation started by some insane US Christian leader is 0%. It has never happened. Ending World War II was with Hydrogen bombs not nuclear. However, number of Muslim suicide bombers around the world is crazy high... Several hundred if not over a thousand over the last 70 years. Look at the real danger around you not the fake made up media danger. Stop wearing their blinders. Christians are not known for bombing innocent people Muslim are very well know for it.


RE: Huh?
By zozzlhandler on 1/13/2010 2:14:18 PM , Rating: 3
Dude, at least try to keep to the facts here. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were *NUCLEAR*. Hydrogen bombs were a later development.

Sheesh.


RE: Huh?
By zozzlhandler on 1/13/2010 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, at least try to keep to the facts here. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were *NUCLEAR*. Hydrogen bombs were a later development.

Sheesh.


RE: Huh?
By BlackIceHorizon on 1/13/2010 2:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
Actually the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII were traditional 'nuclear' fission bombs, not hydrogen fusion bombs. These boosted fission bombs weren't even conceived of until the late 40s at Los Alamos. They weren't developed and deployed until the 1950s. Regardless, both are nuclear weapons. This is true in two senses: both classes use nuclear fission, and both the fission and the fusion components of a hydrogen bomb are nuclear.

Regardless, the chances of a Christian leader in the US (all presidents to date) participating in nuclear escalation are far from 0%. History shows we had several very close calls with the USSR where nuclear force was almost deployed on both sides. With the fall of the Soviet Union, that threat receded, but did not die. As nuclear proliferation continues, these threats are regrowing. The chance of a suicide bomber attacking the US in the near future is in fact greater than a nuclear strike. However, the consequences of the latter are so much greater (orders of magnitude greater destruction) that I would consider it a greater threat to our long term security than traditional terrorism.


RE: Huh?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SavagePotato on 1/14/2010 12:38:09 PM , Rating: 3
George W Bush is a Christian. He is known for killing far more people than the average suicide bomber.

The difference between a terrorist and a nationalist is gauged simply by which is in the higher position of power.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Chernobyl68 on 1/12/2010 1:00:18 PM , Rating: 5
A better comparison (lost on people who didn't pay enough attention to the movie) is Blackwater. They were Veterans employed by a private company to do their master's bidding. They're not working for "Unit Corps God Country" any more, they're working for the alimighty dollar.

here's the CNN interview with Stephen Lang who played the part of the Security Force Colonel

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/12/...


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Carl B on 1/12/2010 10:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
Who even cares? I like the link that shows it basically as just a modern Pocahontas. Why can't it be viewed simply as that, and the modern analysis left aside?

Glad you contributed some cash to the hyper-environmentalist conspiracy though with your ticket purchase. Capitalism at work! ;)


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By userengel on 1/12/2010 9:32:02 AM , Rating: 1
When I was a kid? Blues Clues came out when I was in high school. Not to say that I didn't watch it. lol


RE: Huh?
By Redwin on 1/12/2010 9:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
hehe, most people would call the young individuals occupying their local high school "kids".

.. and not to disappoint you too much, but even when you're in college, we'll still call you "College Kids".


RE: Huh?
By nibathy on 1/12/2010 9:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a child's story, it's American History.


RE: Huh?
By omnicronx on 1/12/2010 12:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ya really, and lets just say the real story does not end as nicely as the Disney version..


RE: Huh?
By agen on 1/12/2010 2:45:01 PM , Rating: 3
But at least I learned to paint with all the colors of the wind.


RE: Huh?
By borismkv on 1/12/2010 3:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Those every important wind colors, like...clear. And...invisible.

Unless you're on Acid. Which may be the case for the people who wrote the plot for Pocahontas.


RE: Huh?
By BPB on 1/12/2010 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 4
I realize kids today, and for some time, have spent lots of time learning about her (she is a part of history), but my school taught us more significant things like how we were founded and on what principles. They didn't feel a need to go out of their way to teach us much about otherwise minor characters (a brief mention was all that was required). Kids today know about her, but not important stuff like the battle of Ticonderoga. Ethan Allen? Benedict who? Did the Native Americans help them too?


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 3:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ethan Allen? Benedict who? Did the Native Americans help them too?

Actual yes the Native Americans did help these people a lot. Our US history books tend to look over the Native American a lot. I'm not saying without them history would have been completely different, but things may have taken longer or not gone as smoothly as they did go. Lewis and Clark had one Indian that made the full journey with them, but she is not listed as the third person in their party but just the Native American guide. I forget her name, but she is listed in history, however, many Native Americans did the same type of work for people who received great credit but gave no mention to their aids. Now I understand the explorer funds and runs the expedition, but at what point do you give or not give credit to your aids?


RE: Huh?
By JakLee on 1/12/2010 7:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sacagawea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea
We also made a gold dollar in her honor - she was actually an amazing person.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By afkrotch on 1/12/2010 11:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
Lewis and Clark didn't have a guide. Sacagawea was an interpreter. Very few times did she do any kind of guiding or interpreting.

It was more like,"woman in group, shows that we are friendly." Pretty much any woman would have worked, but Sacagawea made things easier/faster.

Anyways, depending on what state you're from, can really depend on how much you learn about Native Americans. I'm from Idaho and needless to say, we have quite a lot of class time that ends up dedicated to Idaho's state history. Most of which deals with Native Americans.


RE: Huh?
By Fritzr on 1/12/2010 7:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Minor characters such as the Iroquois advisers To the group working on the US Constitution, explaining how a multi-cameral democracy works? Though their Congress does have 2 upper and 2 lower houses, where ours has only one of each.


RE: Huh?
By pakotlar on 1/12/2010 11:03:44 AM , Rating: 1
I still watch Blue's Clues. You insult my honour! I demand satisfaction!

(slap)


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SilthDraeth on 1/12/2010 9:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Right because GOD forbid you were ever a child. I know I was born 6' tall, weighing 190lbs. How about you?

Granted, I can see the real USMC being a bit pissed, I have to ask my brother in law about it, he was a Marine, I was Air Force, as they were actually Marines.

They were Marines, that at the opening of the movie, the main character states, on Earth they would be fighting for country, but out here they are just hired guns. SO WERE WERE WERE Marines, that are mercenaries for hire currently.

And the plot is nearly identical to the story of Phantasmal, whether or not any of these people admit they were ever a child and watched a kids movie, or had kids and watched a movie with their kids.

Movies all the time reflect organizations inaccurately though, and so I have to state I believe the USMC is over reacting.


RE: Huh?
By BPB on 1/12/2010 10:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
Silly man, person, whatever. Did you ever consider maybe he was long past being a kid when Pocahontas came out? I know I was.

By the way, I was born 6' 225lbs!


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 10:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
The story came out some what 200 or 300 years ago... so just how old is the poster??? Of course maybe he did not take history classes or not raised in the USA.


RE: Huh?
By Crucial on 1/12/2010 10:48:37 AM , Rating: 5
Silly monkey, they don't teach American history in our schools.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 11:13:20 AM , Rating: 3
Errr.. that is why I said, "Of course maybe he did not take history classes or not raised in the USA."

That means if not raised in USA his history class would not cover it.

And you call me a silly Monkey... I call you crucially silly... :P


RE: Huh?
By clovell on 1/12/2010 10:45:40 AM , Rating: 5
Disney's portrayal of the story of Pocahontas is more of a fairy tale than anything historical.


RE: Huh?
By nibathy on 1/12/2010 10:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
Disney did take some liberties with the story,obviously, to make it more child friendly, but John Smith's Diaries were embellished as well.


RE: Huh?
By nibathy on 1/12/2010 10:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
Did you consider that some people actually spend time with children?

By the way, at 6' 225lbs, your obese.


RE: Huh?
By BPB on 1/12/2010 1:19:43 PM , Rating: 3
My obese what? I don't have an obese.

But seriously, what you say is funny because my doc doesn't think so, nor my wife. Now, if I stay this weight and get out of shape, then yes, definitely. But right now, no, definitely not. I run 3 miles a day (asthma makes it very hard to do even that), bike everyday weather permitting, swim when I can, and lift almost every night after work and I play in a volleyball league (don't watch much TV). At some point I'll try and notch the weight down (maybe to 195), but right now it is not a problem and I feel great. But hey, thanks for your concern.


RE: Huh?
By ClownPuncher on 1/12/2010 4:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
But you don't trim your toenails.


RE: Huh?
By afkrotch on 1/13/2010 12:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
If he's got a stocky frame and weight lifts, I wouldn't consider him obese.


RE: Huh?
By omnicronx on 1/12/2010 12:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize its based on true events, and it does not end as nicely as the Disney version..(i.e she dies)


RE: Huh?
By pakotlar on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By therealnickdanger on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/2010 11:16:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right because GOD forbid you were ever a child.


I was a junior in high school in 1995 when that movie came out. That would be a bit too old to watch Disney fairy tale cartoons.


RE: Huh?
By ClownPuncher on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/13/2010 1:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not acting like anything. I was never aware that the Disney movie was based upon a real event and the story of Pochahontas was never covered in any history class I took in school.

You should learn to be more tactful and less of an angry internet man.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 2:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not a Disney fairy tale.. It's a real story, just told by Disney. Also, never too old for Disney...


RE: Huh?
By afkrotch on 1/13/2010 12:28:39 AM , Rating: 3
It's a story based on some real ppl, but not so much based on a true story.


RE: Huh?
By Jedi2155 on 1/12/2010 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
Or Dances with Wolves...


RE: Huh?
By MozeeToby on 1/12/2010 11:08:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I mean, did you not notice the plot is nearly identical to that of Pocahontas?
The plot was simply a retelling of the traditional monomyth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth ). 90% of adventure stories (be they movies, books, or games) follow this basic narrative, leaving out parts that don't fit, changing the order slightly, and very rarely adding new material between the Monomyth plot elements.

(Here be spoilers!)

1. Call to adventure: Invited into the Avatar program
2. Refusal of the call: Nearly skipped, but if I remember right he nearly refused until the pay was mentioned.
3. Supernatural Aid: Saved from death by the Tree of Souls seeds and guiding/teaching by Neytiri.
4. The Crossing of the First Threshold: Actually happens before #3, his first trip into the Avatar body.
6. The Road of Trials: Obviously, the steps he goes through to join the People.
7. The Meeting With the Goddess: The tree of Voices/Souls
8. Woman as Temptress: Ironically, not the woman but rather the Colonel, specifically offering his legs back.
9. Atonement with the Father: Neytiri's father welcoming him into the People and later Tsu'Tey (the new leader who originally disliked him) since as the leader they are both father figures.

I could go on but I think you get the idea. It's just a retelling of the same story that people have been telling since at least the Egyptians and probably much, much earlier. The same formula is used to produce everything from Lord of the Rings to Star Wars to Gone in 60 Seconds. And I'm not knocking the movie, in fact, I'm defending it. It's almost impossible to write and adventure story that doesn't follow the Monomyth what is important is how the story is told.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 11:39:49 AM , Rating: 3
Which is why History often repeats itself... Really not a lot of different options: Win, draw, or Lose. Good guys or Bad guys (unless on the other side then the reverse). Respect the people or abuse the people. Dark side of the force or light side...
That's about it... so how many different out comes and stories can you create from those limits?


RE: Huh?
By MozeeToby on 1/12/2010 2:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just the idea of conflict being central to the story, it's a step by step formula to writing an adventure story. Watch, I'll describe every adventure story every written...

Start with an average guy living in the regular world. Have someone invite them on an adventure and/or have adventure thrust upon them. Have the average joe make some noise about being just an average joe and not cut out for adventuring, but decide to go anyway.

Once in the magical world, save the hero's life via chance/fate/miracle such that it was out of the hero's hands. Assign the hero a guide to introduce them to the magical new world they find themselves in. Have the hero fall in love or experience some kind of mystical love. Have the hero go through trials to achieve his goal (usually something that will benefit humanity).

At this point the hero is more at home in the magical world than in the 'real' one he left behind. Give the hero some temptation to abandon his quest. Have the hero abandon his ego and submit to a higher authority, thus helping him resist the temptation. Thus the hero finally achieves his goal by using the skills and confidence he gained earlier in the narrative.

Now the hero (in the traditional myth) must return to the normal world, something he won't want to do after everything has happened (Avatar subverts this by actually having the hero abandon the regular world, but you could make the argument that he was so despondent with his brother's death and his injuries that he was never fully a part of it anyway).

At this point the Hero must bring his reward and new found wisdom back to the real world. Eventually, he becomes the master of both the real and magical worlds and is equally capable in both. He lives the rest of his life without the fear of death and in control of his own destiny.

Now, how many stories have you heard/read/seen that I just described? Everything from Hercules, Jesus, and Buddha, to Lord of the Rings, Ender's game, and Transformers follows this, really very specific, formula.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 4:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yep... and mostly good examples. Just can not include Jesus. Per the story never once does Jesus not know what will happen; begin, middle, and end results (of his life). He was always in control but lets things unfold as the story tells - some will say, he maked them unfold as the story tells. I do not know Buddha's story, however, Jesus is the only one story I know of that the main person knew 100% of his fate from the day he was born.
The other stories you listed the main person gains knowledge and Wisdom which gives them some power. In the Jesus story he already has that power.


RE: Huh?
By zozzlhandler on 1/13/2010 2:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
Some may believe that, but I think they are seriously misguided (which is why so many find Christianity weird and unpalatable - I mean, who sends their kid to die???). I believe that there was an alternative possibility for Jesus (The King of Kings), but that this was made unattainable by the disbelief of the Jewish leaders. I seriously *don not* believe in *absolute* predestination. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/2010 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's not what some believe it is what is written in the Bible. The poster tried to say similar story when they were not. Now if you do not believe the story in the Bible that is a different point all together.
Who would send their kid to die? If must understand, God is one being but three parts. (father, son, holy spirit) So, in sending his son he sent part of himself, not just his son.
Two we all send our kids to die... I've never heard of anyone staying alive forever. Of course might argue, after life is suppose to be better then life (if in heaven), so is he sending him to a better placing?? Well yes, but sending away from good place to start. It for our benefit not his that Jesus was sent... That is also what makes Bible unique.. most gods tell about how you help them or give to them... The Bible is about God helping us.
Christianity does not believe in absolute predestination. It was only Jesus that was sent with a predestination.
Jewish leader of the day did not like Jesus, because they realized they fell far from the teachings (like most men) and now would be losing power. Therefore easier to say, "I do not care if he raise x number of people from dead, cure the blind... on and on. He is not real so just ignore him" Some listen and they follow the old jewish leaders... other followed the Christ and became Christians.
Alternative possibility for Jesus, yes, he could have asked for the angels to come take him away and it would have been down. He tells the devil this during his 40 days in the desert. However, then he would have not died for us, and God would have failed to keep his promise to his people. So, he had to live out his destination.
That is how the story goes, believe or not to believe is up to you... Of course many more details but hopefully that may clear a thought or two for you.
I will add many who claim they are Christians really have no idea about their own "faith" and come up with some weird thing.... many of these people are pretty wacky. However, like any large group of people there are always some wack jobs...


RE: Huh?
By therealnickdanger on 1/13/2010 3:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
You're leaving out the most crucial component of that story: the resurrection. According to the Bible, God didn't send his son just to die, but

A) to live eternal after death in order to spare all those who believe from death, and

B) to fulfill the promise to reunify the House of Judah and the House of Israel - the latter which God divorced 700 years prior (10 generations) (I Kings).

Torah states that a husband may not remarry a woman he divorces (Deut 24). Paul states that the death of the husband frees a woman from that portion of the Torah (Rom 7). Jesus died, then came back; thus allowed to remarry His bride which He divorced and dispersed because she prostituted herself with idols. It also allows the bastard children of the House of Israel to return to Him - as Torah forbids children of prostitutes from entering the assembly of God for 10 generations (Deut 23). This is why Jesus sends his disciples out from Judah, to the "lost sheep" of Israel, to those dispersed in the nations previously ruled by the Assyrians (the ones who conquered and enslaved the House of Israel 700 years prior) (I Peter).

It's actually a tremendously deep story that spans thousands of years. What any of this has to do with the original article or post, I don't know.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/2010 5:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
A poster was listing Stories of Buddha, Lords of the Ring, and so on. He listed Jesus as well and said how all these stories sounded the same. I was explaining how, maybe most of them are the same but not Jesus's story, his story is very much different then any other story on this planet. I tried to keep it simple and short so not to start a Bible war. Just stating a point OK many stories are the same, but do not include Jesus name out there in this group unless you know his story and better then some 30 or 60 minute cartoon, which misses about 95% of his story.
So, yes, I did not include resurrection part... because I was comparing how he knew exactly what was going to happen to him his whole life, verse other stories where the "hero" learns, grows, becomes more power or whatever through the challenges of life. So, I was just talking about his actual time on this planet not his full story.


RE: Huh?
By monkeyman1140 on 1/12/2010 3:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the Bible


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 5:22:05 PM , Rating: 1
You never read the Christian Bible I see... You should try reading it before you say something sounds like the Bible. Do not believe the stories you hear from other people saying what the Bible tells you (us). Most people do not have a clue what they Bible says, but yet they tell others, "Oh, well it says..." It's really because most of the people know about 10% maybe 20% of the story, so they think they know the whole story. If you took a test with 20% knowledge you would not even score an F.
I would bet you could quote more from the Lord of the Ring series and be more accurate in telling that story then you could of the Bible... but yet you say... "sounds like the Bible".


RE: Huh?
By lco45 on 1/12/2010 6:21:03 PM , Rating: 3
How did the Kangaroos get from the ark to Australia? Koalas? Amazonian poison dart frogs?

Luke


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 7:03:32 PM , Rating: 1
by foot, pad, or paw.... They walked down the highway and thumbed for ride. How do I know, I'm not God and I was not alive during this time. There are other planets and it is not going against the Bible to say other life forms exist on other planets. Just because the Bible does not talked about the other life forms does not mean do not exist and that God does or does not take care of them. It just means he saw no reason to tell us about them. The Bible just say, all creatures came, great and small, some strange...(not exact words but down those lines). It was all we need to know.

If God created all (sun, stars, planets, life), he can protect and transport any and all animals he wishes with great ease.


RE: Huh?
By TSS on 1/13/2010 8:30:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If God created all (sun, stars, planets, life), he can protect and transport any and all animals he wishes with great ease.


Right except he needs a human to build a boat to actually keep those creatures alive for what was it? 40 days? He couldn't have done that himself, or, just whisked everything that needed to go out of existance. Yknow the same guy who did the above in a week.

Lets not bring up the bible in the same story where where discussion the structure of storytelling.... that's just going to end bad.


RE: Huh?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/13/2010 8:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
"Right except he needs a human to build a boat to actually keep those creatures alive for what was it?"

No, he did not need any help. He had a human build it. God needs nothing.

Don't ask such questions if you do not want to get into a discussion... Because if you are off base then I will explain it, so you have a better understanding. However, that is my original point. If you do not know, do not make statements like you do know. If you have question then ask and learn.


RE: Huh?
By lco45 on 1/13/2010 6:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
What about the freshwater fish? The tidal creatures? All the viruses?

The flood story is a naive myth, written by a bearded elder, not an all-knowing God.

Luke


RE: Huh?
By macangel on 1/12/2010 1:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
actually, it's almost identical to another cartoon that most probably don't know about called Fern Gully. Robbin Williams, Tim Curry, Tone Loc, Christian Slater. There were a LOT of identical scenes, and very specific parallels between the two. From the tree of life to the ground lighting up when the guy and girl were running through the forest.
Don't get me wrong, I kinda liked Avatar. But Fern Gully is also one of my favourite cartoons so I guess it would be a given that I'd like Avatar too, lol.
Seriously, check out Fern Gully and you will see that Avatar is just a futuristic rip off of it.


RE: Huh?
By assemblage on 1/12/2010 8:30:52 AM , Rating: 3
Must be why I felt like I had been through some kind of lecture or sermon afterwards. But I knew that going in, so I can only blame myself for all the cringes and prayers to please make it stop.


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/2010 8:48:13 AM , Rating: 4
I served 8 years in the US military. I took no offense to the way they portrayed the mercenaries (former Marines) in the movie. I think that Col Bryan Salas needs to shut his pie hole. Doesn't he realize that he serves his country and cannot speak for his country? It's in the UCMJ.


RE: Huh?
By callmeroy on 1/12/2010 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not military, nor have I ever been. I do have friends in military and in my family tree several relatives served (my grandfather for instance, served in the Army during WWI, WWII AND Korea). I don't understand how people look too much into movies that are clealry meant to just entertain - if its a movie on a serious subject that's one thing...but c'mon already you are taking a movie SERIOUSLY that has blue people, six legged giant panthers and flying pseudo-dragon like things?

Secondly, is a bit strange feeling to me that someone from a military branch that often prides itself for its toughness and lethal efficiency in combat is getting upset over a fictional movie. That just somehow feels weird to me.

"I can drink my own piss if need be to survive, I can and will gut my enemies if need be -- I'll plant explosives, I'll eat bugs and live off the land in even the harshest of environments but --- damn it that makes me sad when a completely FICTIONAL movie with heavy CGI using a very unoriginal storyline that has been rehashed many times before --- implies that Marines would be mercinaries and kill helpless people....that makes me very upset".....

Also anyone ON THE PLANET that allows a movie like Avatar to truly influence thier perception of the military - yeah those nitwits you really shouldn't care about their opinion of you anyway.


RE: Huh?
By Manch on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By T2k on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By rippleyaliens on 1/12/2010 4:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
Being a MARINE, myself.. I take that statement from this col, with pride. a Public Affairs officer=a pencil pushing greenie.. Being a Marine=Drinking, Cussing, Fighting, Killing.. Being Infantry Marine = all the above x3.. Seriously.. Marine=Not kind, not a panzy, not a liberalist.. USMC=Kill, Destroy, Let God sort them out, mentality. And in WAR trust me, that is what you need..Marines are Warriors, Not the best person for person, against Delta Force, Seal, Ranger, etc.. BUT Company or Battalion vs ANY OTHER Battalion on the planet, You can stand the F@#$^^ by.. UCMJ, blah blah, whatever blah..

Semper Fi.. PS- I know this post has some peoples panties in a rush.. My words to you, are Suck it up..


RE: Huh?
By Manch on 1/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Zoridon on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SiN on 1/12/2010 2:11:14 PM , Rating: 3
Funny, when i asked my friend who is a Marine how excited he was to get out there and see so much of the world and get great training to keep him in a great physical shape, and enjoy all the breaks being in the military gives you. He simply replied "i just want to get out there and kill people".

He's a great friend, but he isn't the same he was before he joined.


RE: Huh?
By SiN on 1/12/2010 2:14:52 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not calling out all marines as blind killers. But any military official is trained to kill whoever he is ordered to kill.


RE: Huh?
By AEvangel on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By afkrotch on 1/13/2010 12:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
Military members all being mindless killing machines is as likely as the whole population of the US being mindless killing machines.

That's not to say there are no mindless killing machines in the military. But the same can be said about the population of the US too.


RE: Huh?
By AEvangel on 1/13/2010 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's not to say there are no mindless killing machines in the military. But the same can be said about the population of the US too.


Oh, I agree...I just love all the military supporters trying to make the case that our military are some knights in shinning armor that can do no wrong. They are humans just as good and bad as the rest of us.


RE: Huh?
By adiposity on 1/12/2010 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a member of the military I was offended at the portrayal of military in the movie as being mindless killers even if they were in the empoyment of a mining company. Their base training would have prevented them from commiting such war crimes in the first place.


First, military in all countries commit war crimes at some points. The "base training" does not guarantee that all military personnel are model citizens, for the rest of their lives. You cannot really believe that blindly in "base training," can you?

Second, the idea that training in the Marines prepares one mentally for war with an alien species is a joke. You cannot really be sure how mercenaries would react to fighting a hostile alien force, but their "base training" does not really allow for it. For example, since they are not human, is killing them really a war crime?

Third, you seem to make an assumption that the military training in the distant future, when we are colonizing other planets, will be identical to the training we have today. As far as we know, the military on a battered, nearly uninhabitable earth, may be a highly stressed police force at that point.

In short, your statements place a lot of confidence in a short training camp to prevent actions against a race that is not human, in a future where you have little idea what training camps would be like. A lot of assumptions just to come to the conclusion that the movie has little respect for today's military.

-Dan


RE: Huh?
By Hiawa23 on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By 85 on 1/12/2010 11:50:42 AM , Rating: 3
+1

weather you like it or not, there is an image that the film "Avatar" reinforces. A tribe get push around, overrun, whatever you want to call it so that so that the "MAN" can take a precious resource. I can see exactly where Col Salas is coming from! The main villain is a !@#$ing Marine! Sounds like another story we have all heard time and time again. "The US only invaded IRAQ for it oil..." ok, then why is the United Kingdom, Poland, France, Australia, Greece, (I can go on and on) out there with them? I'm greeting off track here but it's the same story that conspiracy theorists preach time and time again.

Don't get me wrong, the movie was better than most but...


RE: Huh?
By SiN on 1/12/2010 2:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Because of U.N. policy and international politics which serve each counties best interests. Don't be as ignorant. The US forced and went ahead with the invasion without consent from the rest of the U.N. breaking international rules of engagement (which makes no sense anyway, there are no rules to war, only the rules of the most dominant power).

And you'd be an idiot to think "democracy" was anything else but the man doing what he wants. Democracy doesn't work, any some nations do not operate the same way most western counties do. Just because a country is not democratic is not to suggest they are any worse than the way a democratic country works.

The point of politics is to raise the questions, not to submit to what you are told by a governing party/person.

The very act of being in politics and purpose of politics is to popularize a certain view and gain public consent to operate in a way a majority of the country wants. even if that majority is 49.9999999999999999999999999999999% opposed. then you may consider those who do not vote because of whatever reason. mainly because they do not believe to vote works.


RE: Huh?
By adiposity on 1/12/2010 4:42:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The main villain is a !@#$ing Marine!


Ex-marine. And so is the hero. So...


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/13/2010 2:18:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can see exactly where Col Salas is coming from! The main villain is a !@#$ing Marine!


People need to pay more attention. The main villain is a greedy corporation that is mining the planet for precious minerals. The evil henchmen doing the dirty work are hired mercenaries. They are former Marines but not representative of the USMC. Unfortunately that Colonel from the USMC PA office isn't aware of this fact.

I guess the mercenaries should have been Muslim jihad terrorists instead? It seems that every movie and TV show uses them as the enemy these days and they never seem to complain.


RE: Huh?
By ArcliteHawaii on 1/13/2010 3:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
The US military didn't come to mind at all for me. It was made clear that it was a corporate operation entirely. Blackwater came to mind, but not the USMC.


RE: Huh?
By bradmshannon on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Chaser on 1/12/2010 8:06:41 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know what movie you saw shipmate. Are you referring to the hero after he was transformed out from his Marine corp uniform permanently into a Nabu.

And also there was another marine corp member in the movie, his CO, the diabolical man trying to wipe out an entire race of peaceful people, that definitely was not a hero.


RE: Huh?
By Spoelie on 1/12/2010 8:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
No no, not the entire race, just one little village. There were lot's of other villages apparently..

See, all is good ^^


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By bradmshannon on 1/12/2010 9:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
The Marines were there to defend the installation and to handle any military objectives that the company asked of them. My point was that the Marines are the best at dealing with any mission in any environment.

And I AM a Marine motherfucker. Our military wasn't sent there to kill natives, they were sent there to kill terrorists. Last I checked, terrorists came in all nationalities, races, cultures, etc. So go fuck yourself you liberally ignorant fuck.


RE: Huh?
By MrPoletski on 1/12/2010 11:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, a terrorist was anyone your government decided was a terrorist.


RE: Huh?
By Octoberblue on 1/12/2010 11:42:34 AM , Rating: 3
No, dumbass. A terrorist is anyone who intentionally murders defenseless civilians in an attempt to terrorize their population into submission to a radical, brutal, authoritarian religion. In this case, extremist islam. In spite of your idiotic liberal myths, which never take facts and reality into account, our military does not do any of those things. If a civilian is killed it is purely accidental. And I would remind you that the blood of any civilian is on the hands of the terrorist who hide behind them, and even strap bombs to children. It is their fault that their civilians are killed, even when our bullets do it. They are gutless cowards who don't dare fight us directly, so they hide behind women and children because THEY know that WE DO care about not hurting them! Damn liberal morons. I'm so tired of your relentlessly idiotic myths. This has nothing to do with the movie, by the way. Just your stupid post.


RE: Huh?
By AEvangel on 1/12/2010 2:37:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A terrorist is anyone who intentionally murders defenseless civilians in an attempt to terrorize their population into submission to a radical, brutal, authoritarian religion.


Wow, I like how you threw religion in their at the end or I would have thought you were talking about the US Military.

quote:
In spite of your idiotic liberal myths, which never take facts and reality into account, our military does not do any of those things.


Oh really??? American drones dropped in Pakistan kill at least 10 times as many civilians as terrorists and/or Taliban (Pakistani and/or Afghan), according to a July Brookings report. Now the Pakistan government reports that 39 out of 44 drone attacks killed nothing but civilians in 2009.

quote:
And I would remind you that the blood of any civilian is on the hands of the terrorist who hide behind them, and even strap bombs to children. It is their fault that their civilians are killed, even when our bullets do it. They are gutless cowards who don't dare fight us directly, so they hide behind women and children because THEY know that WE DO care about not hurting them!


Wow...with a rant like that you sound no different then most of those Islamic Extremist that run around telling the young Muslims how we must kill all the infidels.

quote:
Damn liberal morons. I'm so tired of your relentlessly idiotic myths.


I'm sure allot of us morons feel the same way about you dim-witted neo-conservative and your folklore about the military being the only answer to solve all our problems.


RE: Huh?
By poohbear on 1/13/2010 3:26:55 AM , Rating: 3
rofl they are gutless cowards who dont fight us directly???? yes because dropping a bomb from 50, 000ft in the air is fighting them directly. Gimme a break. U dont have the balls to strap explosives to yourself to take out 10 enemy soldiers. They're not cowards, they're terrorists. The guys that stormed the munich olympics were NOT islamic extremists, they were palestinian socialists that wanted liberation for palestine. I dont admire them at all, but lets call a spade a spade, these guys are'nt cowards.

our military DOES kill innocent civilians purpusely, hiroshima & nagasaki nukes, tokyo firebombing, and dresden (germany) are prime examples of that, u're being naive as hell to say "we dont kill civilians, but other people do".


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/13/2010 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A terrorist is anyone who intentionally murders defenseless civilians in an attempt to terrorize their population into submission to a radical, brutal, authoritarian religion.


The beginning of your definition applies to what the US military did to Iraq. We invaded and bombed innocent civilians during the initial invasion. Our own government called it "Shock and Awe" so not sure if that is NOT meant to terrorize?

quote:
In spite of your idiotic liberal myths, which never take facts and reality into account, our military does not do any of those things. If a civilian is killed it is purely accidental.


I don't think giving a green light to carpet bomb downtown Baghdad is accidental. Now the laser guided strikes against assumed target buildings might have collateral damage to civilians and that would be accidental.

quote:
They are gutless cowards who don't dare fight us directly, so they hide behind women and children because THEY know that WE DO care about not hurting them!


True but would YOU fight the US military directly if all you had were small arms and mortars? While the US has tanks, bombers and even satellites? Please...be realistic.


RE: Huh?
By SiN on 1/12/2010 2:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame you were rated down.
Partially because one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Mainly because you are also correct.

I wish people were a little more intelligent and a whole lot more unbiased.

I guess when the people who run your country into the ground (bailouts to rich bankers & CEO's), steal your earnings through protection rackets (tax), dictate what you are allowed to do in your home (laws)... we'll i guess my rambling falls on ignorant and deaf ears.

I'll admit the governments do do a good job of keeping certain infrastructure. but i wont be as blind as to admit they aren't gangsters who force their won will.


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/2010 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Marines were there to defend the installation and to handle any military objectives that the company asked of them. My point was that the Marines are the best at dealing with any mission in any environment.


They were mercs, not Marines. It's much like Blackwater. They were performing duties as a contracted mercenary and not a US military Marine.

quote:
And I AM a Marine motherfucker. Our military wasn't sent there to kill natives, they were sent there to kill terrorists. Last I checked, terrorists came in all nationalities, races, cultures, etc. So go fuck yourself you liberally ignorant fuck.


Haha! Is that what you believe? Bush sent the US military there to finish up a job that his daddy started and get a stake in the oil industry. It had nothing to do with terrorists. I served 8 years in the US military and even I'm not that dense to believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about terrorism.

If anything, OIF actually spawned more terrorists.

Also, didn't kill any natives?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

"A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the 'invasion phase', including the shock-and-awe bombing campaign on Baghdad."

Seems like 6,600+ Iraqi civilian people that died during the invasion weren't natives that were killed? You need to buy yourself a clue and quickly.


RE: Huh?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2010 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They were mercs, not Marines. It's much like Blackwater. They were performing duties as a contracted mercenary and not a US military Marine.


A fine line Cameron is walking to be sure.

quote:
Bush sent the US military there to finish up a job that his daddy started and get a stake in the oil industry .


That accusation is so old it's not even funny. And if this is such common knowledge, why did Congress vote to go to Iraq ? Did they all get a "stake" in all this oil, which by the way, the United States didn't take a drop of.

quote:
Seems like 6,600+ Iraqi civilian people that died during the invasion weren't natives that were killed? You need to buy yourself a clue and quickly.


The difference is, those were collateral. We didn't actually set out to hunt down and kill those 6k+ civilians like in Avatar. And coming from someone who has claimed to be in the armed service, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand that civilian casualties happen in every war.

I think there are 3,000+ civilians in New York that could attest to that. If they could...


RE: Huh?
By AEvangel on 1/12/2010 2:17:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A fine line Cameron is walking to be sure.


No finer then the one our military has walked over their illustrious history.

quote:
That accusation is so old it's not even funny. And if this is such common knowledge, why did Congress vote to go to Iraq ? Did they all get a "stake" in all this oil, which by the way, the United States didn't take a drop of.


I think they voted for the use of military force, because they were lied to about Iraq having Nuclear WMD and that he was a threat to the US. The really funny thing is we knew he had Biological WMD cause we sold them to them during the Iraq-Iran war when we supported Saddam with weapons and logistics.

quote:
I think there are 3,000+ civilians in New York that could attest to that. If they could...


LoL....let' not forget the 5000+ military dead and the hundreds of thousands of other civilians killed in this almost decade long "War on Terror", it would make you wonder when the American people are going to realize what a monumental waste of life and money the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq has been.


RE: Huh?
By Uncle on 1/12/2010 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
B52 bombers don't discriminate. Afghanistan, Vietnam comes to mind. USA not signing with the rest of the world so they can be held accountable for war crimes. The private contractors (mercenary) hired by the army to do the dirty work.
Personally war is dirty, and cruel, and if one has to engage in it, expect the worse. People who think that having rules in a war, better put their heads back in the sand. As long as you think their has to be rules in war, terrorist filming beheading are going to win. Trying to cut this short, puts what I have to say out of perspective.


RE: Huh?
By TSS on 1/13/2010 8:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That accusation is so old it's not even funny.


The oil arguement still stands. Because the arguement is saddam was about to start trading oil in euro's, not dollars, and so far oil is still traded in dollars despite it's unstable record the past 4 years and a weak dollar.

And the US had a real interest in that. If saddam had succeeded, the entire OPEC might have followed suit and that would've ment the US would then have to buy it's oil in euro's, which would've significantly increased it's price, probably triggering the economic crises we just had a decade ago.

The specifics are getting a bit hazy since it's been a long time ago when i picked up that info ^^ But it's never been about the actual oil itself. Just the fact of beeing able to buy it at low prices.

quote:
The difference is, those were collateral


Mind you that's worse in my oppinion. If they where hunted and killed for the mining of resources, atleast their deaths serve some purouse (be it a hidious one). What in gods name is the purpouse of "collateral damage"?

Not saying it can be avoided but as an arguement to justify killing it fails miserably. Especially when that collateral damage is caused when your hunting and killing iraqi soldiers.


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/13/2010 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A fine line Cameron is walking to be sure.


Well, he had to use someone with trained experience as a professional killer that follows orders. It's not like you will see Muslim jihad terrorists in space.

The story actually compares to how early French and English settlers of America took away the land from the native Americans. Unfortunately you can't really have colonials from England in space with muskets and cannons.

quote:
That accusation is so old it's not even funny. And if this is such common knowledge, why did Congress vote to go to Iraq ? Did they all get a "stake" in all this oil, which by the way, the United States didn't take a drop of.


Oh yes, I forget. It was actually because Iraq wasn't cooperating with inspections for WMD and that was valid reason to invade a country. Oh, and that 54 card deck that US troops were given all had pictures of various WMD sites and not known Iraqi leadership that had control over the country's oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_pla...

quote:
The difference is, those were collateral.


Who are we to murder 6,600 people for the sake of finding WMD? That's more than twice the number that were killed on 9/11 by terrorists. Are we no better because of that?

quote:
And coming from someone who has claimed to be in the armed service, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand that civilian casualties happen in every war.


There is no claim. I served 8 years and separated honorably as a SSgt in the USAF. You will not get a copy of my DD Form 214 for proof. Sorry.

I joined the military in part to serve and defend my country. When/if the time ever comes for a need to defend my country I'll be the first to pick up a rifle. However, serving a government bent on killing innocents for the sake of greed is not my idea of serving your country.

quote:
I think there are 3,000+ civilians in New York that could attest to that. If they could...


Somehow I do not think that all those that woke up on 9/11 and went to work in the Twin Towers and Pentagon believed that they were in a war zone.

Bad comparison and use as an example.


RE: Huh?
By callmeroy on 1/12/2010 10:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
Comparing Delta Force (apples) to Marines (oranges).

Delta force is a highly trained special forces unit that only the best of the best even get a chance to get in and you are comparing them to your standadard Marine? No disrespect intended for any Marines reading this but I'm merely saying you are comparing "elite" to "soldier". Do you also want to compare a high school kids home economics cooking project to Emeril Lagasse (sp?)?

Delta force BETTER show up a standard soldier...that's whole friggin point to their training.


RE: Huh?
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/2010 11:33:48 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for supporting my statement.


RE: Huh?
By elgueroloco on 1/12/2010 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you are comparing "elite" to "soldier".


Just by way of clarification, the Marine Corps does not have soldiers; it has marines. The Army has soldiers, the Air Force has airmen, and the Navy has sailors.

A bit technical and nit-picky, but true.

As for the comparison of Delta to Marines: it is apples to oranges more because of different missions/purpose than because of skill level. Delta Force is a small, highly specialized force whose purpose is counter-terrorism/hostage rescue. The Marines are a larger force made for a much broader range of missions. Though ostensibly their mission is to serve as naval infantry and do amphibious invasions, in reality they are a standalone force capable of carrying out the full spectrum of combined-arms operations without assistance from other branches (after they leave the Navy's boats, that is).


RE: Huh?
By dxf2891 on 1/12/2010 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 3
Actually you are factually obscure in your assumption. The groups you mention are the "Elite Corps" of those various branches of the armed forces. You might even call them the "Warrior Class." The ENTIRE Marine Corps are warriors. It reminds me of that scene from 300 when the king goes around asking what do you do: I'm a farmer; and you: I'm a herdsman; and you: I'm a smith. Spartans just like Marines are ALL warriors. Every cook, supply person, admin, driver and guard learns to shoot, hand to hand, survival and receives overall warrior training. We do have the Elite of the Elite and they are the Reconnaiscence Marines. You try sitting in a tree for four days to observe and report so that you can advance and eliminate. Again, as with all art, people will read into it what they see.


RE: Huh?
By MrPoletski on 1/12/2010 11:03:59 AM , Rating: 3
I woulda loved to see the look on his face if one of those guys had gone 'I'm a soldier, sir'.


RE: Huh?
By cochy on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By dxf2891 on 1/12/2010 10:14:31 AM , Rating: 5
I actually spent six years in the Marine Corps (two in public affairs). I can see both sides of this argument. As war is a very unpopular and distasteful business, it is one that some have to be successful at. I think that we all need to remember why we go to movies: to escape from reality and make our own interpretations of it. If Col. Salas feels that the movie is taking a swipe at the Corps, he's entitled to feel that way. What he is not entitled to is his accusation of what the production team intended when they produced this film. I personally saw it as a re-enactment of the way Europeans invaded the Americas and "took" the land from the native peoples already occupying this land. Again, each person will feel the way they feel about this and any other work of art. Isn't that the responsibility of art?


RE: Huh?
By therealnickdanger on 1/12/2010 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 4
Thank you for providing some intellectual honesty to an otherwise retarded argument.


RE: Huh?
By djkrypplephite on 1/12/2010 10:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sam Worthington was wearing an EGA shirt half the movie, it is clearly a shot at the USMC.


RE: Huh?
By Iaiken on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By surt on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By zinfamous on 1/12/2010 1:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, Col. Salas does very little for the jarhead reputation of the USMC by overlooking some rather crucial details in the script.

Mercenaries /= active military.

If anything, Jake & the Puerto Rican soldier can be seen as proper USMC--not willing to serve under the tyrannical mercenaries.


RE: Huh?
By BZDTemp on 1/12/2010 1:34:28 PM , Rating: 1
Seems to me they feel that they are being targeted and it is because there is something to it!

Some dude living in a white house once talked about carrying a big stick but speaking softly. It seems to me that the Bush's got that one wrong and while some use of force may have been justified most certainly is not.

Hint. Still no WMD found plus it would have been far cheaper to buy the oil rather than trying to gain control of it.


RE: Huh?
By SiN on 1/12/2010 1:45:17 PM , Rating: 3
And i thought every Marine got paid for what they do. Or does everyone who joins the military not get paid for it?

They are still mercenaries. They just get paid by their country.

The story (like Pocahontas, many movies and stories), shows morality and the wrongs done by one nation against the next. It also show's the industry behind war. I do not feel that highlighting this is in any way doing disservice to the USMC marines. It highlights what governments world wide do in the name of "war".

Marines are trained to kill for their "country" which is essentially a select group of politicians and lobbyist groups.

Same as any soldier of any nation in any activity relating to "kiling in the name of".

It was a compassionate movie displaying the humanistic side of things that get pushes aside for an agenda.

Any patriots objecting are just bitter.


RE: Huh?
By Fritzr on 1/12/2010 7:26:01 PM , Rating: 1
A country's miltary are following the orders of their government.
A mercenary military is following the orders of their commander who in turn is paid to complete missions or campaigns.

The real difference is that a mercenary company may fight the forces of X while being paid by Y one day and then with the next contract find themselves being paid by X for fighting the forces of Y.

The USMC no matter what your opinion of them, follow orders given on behalf of the US government and no Marine who has not mutinied will be found fighting against US interests unless his high command believes such a thing is good for the US and issues such an order.

Mercenaries will fight any force their high command has been paid to oppose.


RE: Huh?
By dlapine on 1/14/2010 1:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no.

A mercenary is someone who fights for money.

All US servicemen/women take an oath to protect the constitution, not a Flag, a politician, a god or money.

They are not mercenaries simply because they get a pay check; it's not the money they fight for.

It's a pretty simple distinction.

Having taken that oath twice, once when joining the USMC reserves and again when I went active duty into the USAF, I can definitely tell you that US servicemen are trained not to follow illegal orders, and that things which are illegal to do are made clear to all.

BTW, Marines aren't "trained to kill", they are are trained to accomplish their mission regardless of what it that takes. Sometimes you have to kill the bloke, other times you don't.

I'm not saying that there aren't individual f#$k-ups in the military, nor that there aren't situations where military as a whole is being misused or misdirected. The thing is, we clean up our mistakes ourselves. Look at the conviction rate for servicemen, and the actual punishments handed out.

As for the movie, it's pretty clear that the protagonist and antagonist are no longer in the Marines. It's just as clear that one sees his duty as doing whatever the company wants, and that the other sees his duty to the legal inhabitants of the region.

The USMC doesn't like that kind of ambiguity and so their PR person has to make an objection to it. Doesn't mean he's correct, but the Corps can't let it pass with notice.

In the end, it's just a movie.


RE: Huh?
By walk2k on 1/12/2010 8:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder how this guy feels about a film like oh say, Full Metal Jacket, who were shown using drugs and frequenting the local prostitutes.

You know, like real marines.


RE: Huh?
By CharonPDX on 1/12/2010 11:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the only "over-the-top stereotype" was the Colonel. Yes, he was an absolute stereotype "jarhead". Most of the other soldiers were very even-keeled, with a few "follow the boss' orders because he's the boss", and a few "No, dammit, I'll do what's right."


RE: Huh?
By Belard on 1/13/2010 6:21:20 AM , Rating: 1
The USMC crybaby didn't read the credits where it said:

"The characters in this film are fictional and do not actually resemble actual places or persons..."

Now, if the USMC has a hidden Alien technology (rumored) and have a base on Pandora... then WE HAVE GOT TO KNOW!


RE: Huh?
By Major HooHaa on 1/17/2010 1:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Avatar draws from so many films and references. I was reading that some of the ideas, may have been taken from a set of Russian Novels entitled The World of Noon or Noon Universe, written by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/58399,people,enterta...

At the cinema, after the credits were rolling up the screen, three of us were listing influences that we could seen in the film, including Gorillas in the Mist (which Sigourney Weaver was in) and Aliens. Which also had Colonial Marines in it.

In Aliens, it looks like world Governments are not as important as "The Company." Which seems to control everything including space exploration, space colonisation and the "Colonial Marines."

Also I couldn't help noticing that the big fat gunship in the Avatar, looks very much like the dropship from Aliens.

The final point is that the attitude of the humans towards the Na'vi in Avatar, harks back to Imperial views of native humans of conquered lands, which were around before the U.S.A came into being.


Good job Colonel
By Chaser on 1/12/2010 7:27:34 AM , Rating: 1
Cameron puts out his billion dollar movie rampant with anti war propoganda and military personnel sterotyping and gets an international pass with his Hollywood message:

The big evil corporate empire with it's government military marine shock troops invading and plummaging a pristine, serene planet destroying an innocent culture.

Avatar was good. But it didn't need all the political American history parallels to be good. As a matter of fact when the predictable final battle started I almost fell asleep.

I was enchanted by Pandora and it's people. And although a bit on the cheesy side the experiences "Sully" had I at times felt/wished I was/could have been him.

Kudos to the USMC Colonel calling Cameron out. Hopefully common sense will also prevail with the average viewer.




RE: Good job Colonel
By micha90210 on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job Colonel
By Chaser on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job Colonel
By Manch on 1/12/2010 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 4
There's the problem right there that many have with how you and the left view the USMC. You call "greediness/rasicm/arrogance/blind obidience" qualities. Those are not the core values or qualites of a Marine or any of the Armed Forces. Never have been, never will be. Those are failures of a personal nature, of the individual.


RE: Good job Colonel
By richough3 on 1/12/2010 8:42:32 AM , Rating: 5
Those guys weren't Marines, they were mercs and a bunch of greedy, corporate sell outs not worthy of being called Marines. The true Marine was the guy who saw that things weren't right and stepped up to the challenge of taking out those who forgot what it was to be a Marine. There's good and bad people everywhere and it's a shame that someone would think the portrayal of that band of mercs in the movie would represent the real Marines.


RE: Good job Colonel
By HollyDOL on 1/12/2010 9:08:57 AM , Rating: 4
I am not an US so I don't have any positive or negative feeling towards any fraction of US army. From what I have seen and heard in the movie I think that it was clearly stated that human soldiers on Pandora were marines (the part where Jack leaves the shuttle after landing on Pandora), but they retired and then turned in mercenaries. I conclude that they

a) were good enough to get hired by a mining corp to protect the super-big profit operation (in fact that should put merits to USMC in my point of view)

and b) were not marines anymore so their war-liking attitude should have been seen to be related to the mining company and mercenary colonel, but not to USMC.


RE: Good job Colonel
By Dribble on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job Colonel
By Hiawa23 on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job Colonel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 11:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
first, glad to hear your brothers served and not harmed. I've known many people that went into the marines. Not one of them become more aggressive (meaning quick to get into a fight) the marines weed that out. One of my friends retired as a Lt. Col from the marines and he explain they do not want aggressive people, they get killed to easily and usually cause the death of other soldiers. Assertive - I think would be a better word for the change I saw in these people. Yes, I know aggressive is used to define assertive but in a self confident way not a harmful way.
Would add, the guys in the plush offices many miles away sending them to their deaths are the politicians and the top Marine we relays their wishes to the field. Very common to find a Col. up in the front battle field area (not in the mud maybe, but in reach of bombs and a sniper).


RE: Good job Colonel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 11:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
Marine we relays -- sorry bad typo... Should read: Marine which relays..


RE: Good job Colonel
By Manch on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job Colonel
By Hiawa23 on 1/12/2010 2:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're so full of shit. You don't have two brothers that went in. You're whole post reads like a generic liberal description of how you view the military as a whole.

You don't know me, I don't get into the liberal, left right nonsense many of you internet warriors want get into. All Iknow is both of them came home & totally different than when they went in, thankfully both are now having pretty procutive lives, & now have college & master's degrees. I was away at college when they did their tours. You ought to be ahamed of yourself getting on the internet spewing what you just did.


RE: Good job Colonel
By corduroygt on 1/12/2010 10:30:12 AM , Rating: 5
You become a marine because you want to serve your country, not some corporation. The former is patriotic and noble, while the latter is no different than many of us posters are do every day. If my boss asked me to do something I morally object to, I wouldn't do it.


RE: Good job Colonel
By dxf2891 on 1/12/2010 10:39:22 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, he adapted and overcame. But realistically, Marines never question their mission (it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ]). I am still a proud Marine regardless of what any movie, song, news report or internet posting presents in its views. Its a story for a movie, not a declaration for the Marine Corps. Hell, Heartbreak Ridge, Full Metal Jacket and Gomer Pyle, USMC were all about the Marine Corps and none showed the true total aspect of the Corps because they were entertainment. If you are not entertained, don't watch. During the entire movie, I never once saw the Eagle, Globe and Anchor which is the insignia of the Corps. Without that (which the Marine Corps makes abundlantly clear during basic training) you are not a Marine.


RE: Good job Colonel
By siuol11 on 1/12/2010 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
So your point is that marines never do anything bad, but they follow orders they don't agree with blindly? Because it seems to me that one would lead to the other...
And FYI, I wasn't a marine, I was Army with the 101st... And I'm sad to say that the way the soldiers acted in that movie is how some act in real life. BTW, UCMJ does NOT tell you that you complete the mission regardless, it says that you should disobey illegal orders.


RE: Good job Colonel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/12/2010 11:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
"And I'm sad to say that the way the soldiers acted in that movie is how some act in real life"

The marines would say, "and that is what makes us different then the Army."

The marine will follow order even if dislikes the order that is how he is trained. However, I do have to agree and point out, they are still humans. There will be a point which if an order is too extreme they will say no or purposefully cause different results then expected. Example: fire gun into the ground instead of into a group of people after being told to fire gun.


RE: Good job Colonel
By jonmcc33 on 1/12/2010 11:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The true Marine was the guy who saw that things weren't right and stepped up to the challenge of taking out those who forgot what it was to be a Marine.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Although I don't agree what our country decides to do in the event of war I have no problem being proud that any real Marine is willing to sacrifice his life for his country.


RE: Good job Colonel
By T2k on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job Colonel
By Chaser on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job Colonel
By dxf2891 on 1/13/2010 11:06:41 AM , Rating: 1
I don't recall ANY parallels to American history. Those leaps were made by the viewer (very much like yourself). If you honestly look at America's history, America has blood on its hands no two ways about it. I love how the Europeans came to this continent to subjegate and conquer and it was a "necessary evil," however when a "common criminal" carries out a similar crime in your suburban neighborhood it's the "end of the friggin' world." Wrong is wrong, no matter which side you might fall on the argument. We seem to keep forgetting that THIS WAS A MOVIE. If you drew political subtext out of it, it's because you went into the movie with a political subtext disposition. I thought the movie was entertain and had some breathtaking effects. The Marine in me thought the retired colonel in the movie was a d!ck. He in no way represents the Corps that I know and love. The world is full of mercenaries and killers with military training. That's the nature of the beast. Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, but he didn't define your typical Marine. Marines are trained to follow orders, not question them. Each individual Marine has to live with his or her decision to follow or not follow the orders put before them. If ordered to shoot into a crowd do you question the order? What if after the fact you learn that the entire crowd had C4 strapped to their chests and backs and they were planning to march on the nearest installation. The questioning of orders during a combat situation causes people you know to die, pure and simple. It's not a perfect system, by it is a tried system that works the majority of the time. Marines rely on leadership to see the big picture and instruct us to carry out the bigger good. Imagine in your household if everyone did what they wanted to do, questioning every decision you made. How would that go over, and how would you get things done?


RE: Good job Colonel
By dxf2891 on 1/13/2010 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, BTW, prior to public affairs, I was a member of the 7th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Reconnaisance. I know a little about what happens when Marines question orders. I have two dead buddies in Arlington and the one who questioned in Ft. Levenworth as a result. It is really easy to say what you would and wouldn't do while watching a movie, it is entirely different when rounds from an AK-47 are tearing through your flesh with explosions as a backdrop and you are attempting to concentrate on your purpose for being in this place so foreign from your home. Having to train a weapon on a kid who couldn't be more than twelve years old and have someone step in front of your weapon and tell you he's just a kid as he proceeds to gun down two members of your unit. Yeah I'm sorry, questioning orders is not a luxury too many LIVING Marines have.


Aliens
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2010 7:05:40 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder what he thought of "Aliens"...




RE: Aliens
By pnyffeler on 1/12/2010 7:20:04 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sure he was thrilled with Bill Paxton's courageous performance.

"Game over man! Game over!"


RE: Aliens
By therealnickdanger on 1/12/2010 8:04:57 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, he may have freaked out at first, but when the sh*t hit the fan, Private Hudson stepped up and bagged a lot of aliens, allowing Ripley and the others some time to get away. Ultimately, he was a hero.


RE: Aliens
By Hiawa23 on 1/12/2010 10:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure he was thrilled with Bill Paxton's courageous performance.

"Game over man! Game over!"

That was one of my favorite parts of the movie.


RE: Aliens
By amanojaku on 1/12/2010 8:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
Salas' hidden files at the USMC

Alien - "Panties!!!" *****
Aliens - "Two chicks with guns!!!" ****1/2
Alien 3 - "That's not how you rape a girl... Even a bald one." **
Alien Resurrection - "Ron Pearlman!!! Winona Ryder..." ***
Alien vs. Predator - "WTF?!?" *
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem - "Rally the troops! Hollywood must die!!!"


RE: Aliens
By Spivonious on 1/12/2010 9:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
Did you hear they're remaking Alien? It's going to be horribly bad.


RE: Aliens
By therealnickdanger on 1/12/2010 2:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's a prequel, not a remake per se.

quote:
Producer Tony Scott confirmed to Collider.com that he and brother Ridley Scott are developing a prequel film to Ridley's original Alien movie, with Carl Rinsch directing.

The news confirms the rumor first reported by Bloody-Disgusting that an Alien remake was in the works for 20th Century Fox.

"Carl Rinsch is going to do the prequel to Alien," Scott told Collider while promoting The Taking of Pelham 123. "He's one of our directors at our company."

Tony Scott added: "I'm excited because Ridley created the original, and Carl Rinsch is one of the family."

Scott said that he hopes to get the movie before cameras ""hopefully [by] the end of the year" for a summer 2011 release.


RE: Aliens
By superPC on 1/12/2010 10:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
I thought evil empire and their military might is the cornerstone of cameron movie. with exception of terminator and titanic, this has been the typical enemies of cameron movies (the abyss, alien movies, and now avatar).


Overly Sensitive People vs Morons
By darkpuppet on 1/12/2010 9:50:32 AM , Rating: 3
Two observations:

1) people can be overly sensitive about anything -- especially characatures of themselves

2) there are people out there who'll believe the characatures over the obvious reality.

Two things illustrated by this article
1) The Marines aren't (misdirected) badasses like the guys in the movie Avatar -- they're overly sensitive metrosexual males who take everything personally.

2) There are people out there who can't enjoy a movie or story for what it is. Despite the fact that many of us go to the movies because real life is boring.

to the USMC: suck it up buttercup, it's just a movie -- there's a lot of good PR to be had, and complaining doesn't help your case.




RE: Overly Sensitive People vs Morons
By T2k on 1/12/2010 9:59:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1) The Marines aren't (misdirected) badasses like the guys in the movie Avatar -- they're overly sensitive metrosexual males who take everything personally.
(...)
to the USMC: suck it up buttercup, it's just a movie -- there's a lot of good PR to be had, and complaining doesn't help your case.


ROFLMAO - so true! :D


RE: Overly Sensitive People vs Morons
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2010 4:43:08 PM , Rating: 3
Metrosexual is hardly a term I would use to describe the vast majority of marines. Especially to their face.


By darkpuppet on 1/13/2010 10:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
this could be a real danger then if people are to believe that the USMC is the corps that isn't portrayed in Avatar...

the USMC leadership especially sounds like they could use a hug.


By monkeyman1140 on 1/12/2010 3:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
I mean come on, when was the last time they were used for anything else, maybe 1950?




By porkpie on 1/12/2010 5:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
How does it feel to be a clueless moron? Just in the past decade alone, the Marines have performed hundreds of humanitarian missions, everything from distributing food and emergencies supplies to countries hit by natural disasters, to helping here in the US with things like forest fires.

Oh, and lets not forget all the times Marines have rescued US citizens from war-torn regions. If you ever leave your mother's basement, you might actually appreciate something like that.


By dxf2891 on 1/13/2010 11:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, just because things don't appear on the evening news, doesn't mean Marines are sitting around in a squad bay or quansit hut playing cards. There are things happening daily that makes the most intense action movie look tame by comparison. While you will usually hear me downing the other branches of the military due to inter-service rivalries, I hold nothing but respect for any American that chooses to serve his/her country. You should try it sometime.


boo hoo
By judasmachine on 1/12/2010 8:16:55 AM , Rating: 3
Every movie makes someone look bad, who cares? Did the Army cry when Dances with Wolves came out? It had the same plot.




RE: boo hoo
By Belard on 1/13/2010 6:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, yeah... All you WHITE GUYS - GO HOME.

Give back the land to us Indians! All of it!


Screw the Military PR monkeys
By Griswold on 1/12/2010 9:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
If you dont crawl up their ass, you (obviously) dont get any support, be it equipment or soldiers for extras for free. Fine, its just fair.

Here, Mr. Cameron chose not to use that "service" because its not compatible with the story at all (humans being the bad guys) and he wouldnt have gotten any of that anyway with this story. And what do we have here now? A military PR guy playing the honor card for lack of any intelligent argument... wow, talk about predictable and cheap!

Most americans have a huge problem with their military attitude, let me tell you that. These people are absolutely unable to differntiate any form of criticism or cynicism - not even if its just the story a popcorn movie. This story and alot of the comments here are proof positive.

And now rate me down for it, I dont expect any less than that.




RE: Screw the Military PR monkeys
By T2k on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Screw the Military PR monkeys
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2010 3:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
Please do not dare to say that most Americans have a problem with our military or its attitude. You're probably not even an American.

Most Americans are damn proud of our men and women in uniform. It is the politicians on either side we have an issue with.


Forget about Iraq, this is SA
By TeXWiller on 1/12/2010 4:24:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'd bet there are still living former or currently serving members of the USMC who have had to witness rape, torture and slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians as a formal representative of the US during the cold war, without any possibility of interfering. The ideas of the movie were created shortly after a particularly nasty time in the history of South America and had I personally experienced or was aware of such a situation, I too would be reluctant to speak about it, overly sensitive about the subject in general and traumatized decades after. You can still experience the rain of arrows in certain areas of the Amazon today and machete slashes and machine gun fire in other parts of the SA.




RE: Forget about Iraq, this is SA
By dxf2891 on 1/14/2010 10:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
Were you reading my Facebook page? I recapped a particularly heinous act in SA during the little publicized War on Drugs. And there were no arrows and machetes, but there were automatic weapons and lots of gunfire. I carried out orders that to this day still cause me sleepless nights and these are things that happed over twenty years ago. Curbing the drug trade in Columbia and the surrounding areas was an ugly time in America's history.


RE: Forget about Iraq, this is SA
By TeXWiller on 1/14/2010 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the tip. I collected and put together several stories from multiple independent sources from the war on drugs, the dirty war, indian affairs, the Middle American conflicts (Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua) among others and deduced possible scenarios from them.


By oldscotch on 1/12/2010 8:54:24 AM , Rating: 4
It made it very clear that they were mercenaries, I don't remember that they were *all* marines though.




Ohhh the irony...
By SublimeSimplicity on 1/12/2010 9:19:54 AM , Rating: 4
"takes sophomoric shots at our military culture and uses the lore of the Marine Corps and over-the-top stereotyping of Marine warriors to set the context for the screenplay. This does a disservice to our Corps of Marines and the publics' understanding of their Corps."

I wonder if the Colonel has seen any of the advertisements his own department have produced in the past. I mean, do marines often find themselves in conflict with dragons armed only with swords? Does that accurately portray the role of a marine corp PFC or does it play on the "lore of Marine warriors" and "over-the-top stereotyping"?




AVATAR IS CRAP!
By BillyBatson on 1/12/2010 11:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ok not completely. 3D=10, Visuals=8, Acting=7, Story=5 Originality=0
that comes out to a 6 right?
Has anyone ever seen the cartoon movie Ferngully: The Last Rainforest? It has the same plot as Avatar and was released in 1992, still have it on VHS actually. All Cameron did was move the story to a different planet and threw in 18 years worth of technological progression to improve the visuals.

I served in the U.S Air Force. While watching the film it didn't offend me though I was very aware of how stereotypical the military side was. However I am sure if the military presence were Russian forces the Marine Corps PR rep wouldn't have a problem with it.




RE: AVATAR IS CRAP!
By Belard on 1/13/2010 5:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
Er... I've not seen Ferngully, Pocahontas or the Last Rain forest.

Its a story told well, thats the point. Lets see, Titanic WON best picture, etc... but most of us KNEW how it was going to end. (BTW: theres about 10 Titanic movies in English alone) There were 4 Indiana Jones movies, but all are pretty much the same. Not sure why we got a Transformers 2...

Pretty much ALL guys watch porn.... new porn, new naked ladies (or guys for the gay men), yet its all still the same-ol in-out in-out.

Oh, Batman was redone in the 80s and was very good and it was RE-DONE again in the 2000s and also VERY good.

Overall, I think its stupid for the USMC to say anything about it. Stupid, I'm not impressed.

Uh... they are guns for hire. Perhaps not ALL were Marines... but they sure were NOT in the Armed Services of any government. And WE do get guys in the Military that LOVE doing what they do, the ability to shoot and kill another living being without going to prison.

Go watch the movie again... The 3D blew my mind the first time, I enjoyed the story more the 2nd time as well as noticed more character development and acting.


Rattle your cage
By Elephantintheroom on 1/13/2010 12:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the USMC , this is an outrage I mean its suuuuuuuuuuuch a stretch to imagine the US Forces being manipulated to fight against an indigenous race in order to usurp and control there natural resources.




RE: Rattle your cage
By Thirst4Knowledge on 1/13/2010 1:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
LOL FUnniest $hit ever dude

It was like a reaction from somone who is anoied at being exposed


Not just one...
By 3minence on 1/12/2010 9:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think the Col is voicing his concern about the trend in general to demonize Marines and the military. Cameron seems to particularly like to do it. Remember the incompetent lieutenant in Aliens? Yes, he was necessary to the plot. And I still laugh every time I hear Hudson saying "Game over, Game f-ing over". But it does do a disservice to those who risk everything in far away lands.

Yes, it's just a movie. But movies have messages, and some time those messages hit the wrong spot.




RE: Not just one...
By Belard on 1/13/2010 6:13:33 AM , Rating: 1
Uh... Aliens was a movie too. And we DO have incompetent people in our own Armed Forces. People too stupid to work a McDonalds. No, I (we) are not saying all people in the military are morons, or greedy chicken shit bastards.

You're talking about Private Hudson, he was funny as hell and in the end, he kicked Alien ass.

Theres a message at the end of most movies:
"The characters in this film are fictional and do not resemble actual places or persons..."

Watch a WWII movie... they are bad because they portray Nazis as bad people. Oh yeah, they were.

But a great movie like Das Boot (The Boat) about a German U-boat and its crew is a master piece. You still felt sorry for the guys, even thou they were German.


Cry Baby
By albus on 1/12/2010 9:39:26 AM , Rating: 1
Col. Bryan Salas, United States Marine Corps Director of Public Afffairs, wrote an open letter criticizing the film and its director.
quote:
"... but not emblematic of the Marines who honorably fight and fall to win our nation's real battles today."


Mr Salas, the nation's real battles are not bombing civilians in countries half way around the world. Their only crime is living in the same country with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Not very different from bin Laden justifying the killing of innocent American citizens because they fund the American war machine.




RE: Cry Baby
By Octoberblue on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Cry Baby
By spoerad1 on 1/12/2010 12:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
to settle this childish argument thats gone on far to long, no the military does not kill civilians on purpose but many people also see an unjust war that has resulted in many civilian deaths.


I am a Marine
By Richardito on 1/12/2010 10:45:12 AM , Rating: 3
Well, I am a Marine and I was not offended by anything in the movie. After the training you get in the USMC you could easily do the kind of work they were doing. It is called the game of war. Just make sure that you de-humanize your enemy (like the US did for Japenese people in WWII) and your soldiers will kill them without any hesitation. Normal stuff for us humans...




cant we just
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2010 11:58:01 AM , Rating: 3
Watch the f*cking movie?

If you're stupid enough to get your view of the military from one, you deserve to be laughed at when you express that view.

I thought it was a great movie. No not the most original plot but still worth going to see.




It's a FICTION !
By armagedon on 1/12/2010 9:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
Man, must be a tough job to be a film producer. Now who could I possibly offend with my movie ? Relax, it's not a documentary but a FICTION. In a FICTION you can deformed, amplify any concepts or entities.

Now Cameron vision of his army, while quite crude represent what armies around the world are. They are trained to follow orders without questioning them and use all the necessary force to accomplish it. Then are not meant to question the moral implication of there actions or their reasons. Otherwise, they will be unpredictable. Iraq anyone ????




So freegin sensitive.
By retrospooty on 1/12/2010 9:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
Why is the world so sensitive now. Even the Marines cant have a movie out without whining "waaaaaaaa, we dont like the way we are portrayed" ... ITS A MOVIE FFS!!!

Seriously, the Marine Corps Director of Public Affairs guy that wrote this letter should be ashamed of himself, and SHOULD have been stopped before sending a letter like that.

Beyond that the media shouldn't pick up on such puss ass stories like this. We have bigger issues to think about.




Fantasy
By cfaalm on 1/12/2010 9:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me Col. Salas only saw the movie but didn't bother to turn on the sound or subtitles. The 'marines" were hired guns and just as greedy as the company they worked for. The company outsourced its fighting club to people that no longer felt like they had a country to defend. And he should dismiss it as such.

I know most of us won't project that hired force's attitude on the real armed forces from any free democratic nation like the US or EU countries. Besides, there are plenty of movies where our military is with the good guys and aliens are the bad guys. I never heard aliens complain about that.

Let's forget what the colonel said and buy him a drink.




By GaryJohnson on 1/12/2010 10:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
It echoes the public's perception of military culture, it doesn't alter it. "Hollywood" bases their fictional representation of things on public perceptions. The military society is what creates that perception of military culture. If they don't like the way they are being perceived (and fictionally represented) then they should look inwards and not outwards.

As someone else said, the USMC should probably take a look at their own recruiting propaganda once in a while.

Reality leads to perception, and perception leads to fictional representation.




By n0nsense on 1/12/2010 10:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
Clarification:
I'm not gonna talk about people (individuals).

So what do you expect when since the end of WW2 you have started over 50 wars/conflicts ?
What do you expect when you are the only one to use nuclear weapons to kill people (twice) and let me remind you that both cities were not military targets.
What do you expect when most of you culture/mentality is about money/numbers/control/power.
US is shown as it is and i understand that this makes things harder for some to convince you to sacrifice you life.
We are saving this people !!! dead people don't have problems




Col. Salas is wrong
By sh3rules on 1/12/2010 10:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
Avatar is just entertainment.




By dgingeri on 1/12/2010 10:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
Quite honestly, I think this is overblown. Everyone will see the message and lessons from this movie differently.

Do I think that Iraq and Afghanistan were fought over oil? No. Nobody has made a profit from those. They were fought to stop terrorists and another major bad guy, who were threats to our country.

Do I think that the military is populated by all good guys? No. There are people in the military just like these guys in this movie. We need to keep them in check or things get out of control. If we don't learn from lessons of the past, things will get out of control again. The French and Indian war, Jackson, Sherman, internment camps for japanese americans during world war 2, My lai. The lessons of history are there to be learned.

We need a reminder that these people exist sometimes. There are good guys and bad guys. The line is drawn by why they do things. If they do things simply for selfish reasons, not taking the effects to others into account, then they are bad guys. Yes, there are people out there who don't do things for themselves alone and will sacrifice their own well being to help others. I know of men who went to New Orleans to help clean up the debris and build new homes, even in areas where the residents refused to even start their own clean up. (Yes, they are white, Christian, and all over 60.)

The lesson to be learned is that we have to work to keep the evil men from power, and put the good men in power. So far, we've done one, but not the other. Many believe that there are no really good men to put in power. I know better. I know there are both sides to the balance scale.




this just in...
By inperfectdarkness on 1/12/2010 10:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
Weyland-Yutani files defamation of character lawsuit against the USMC for taking credit that doesn't belong to them.




lets get over ourselves now...
By meepstone on 1/12/2010 11:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
When will people get off their high horse and just come to realize that its a movie and obviously does not reflect how the USMC actually is. So many groups whine about movies for ridiculous reasons. its a movie, if your ego cant handle watching it then dont. my 2 cents.




Also...
By meepstone on 1/12/2010 11:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't these military officials see this movie as: A former marine who saves a whole culture from very terrible people and is now a hero.

People need to grow up and just realize its a movie and nothing more. Not like its a micheal moore movie.




Modern Myths
By Octoberblue on 1/12/2010 11:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
Since the time of Tolkien, and even Mary Shelley, we have seen hundreds of stories inspired by fear of industrial and technological progress. These fears are of course often justified. Tolkien saw first hand the horrors of "this first War of Machines". It is natural for human beings to see both the potential for good and for evil of this kind of progress. And our history has shown that without a doubt both the good and the evil usually manifest themselves somewhere, at some time. That's why I don't have a problem with the movie. Except for this one thing. All of us hunger for the Garden of Eden on some level. A beautiful, simple, pure life in connection and community with others, and in harmony with nature. However, aside from perhaps the Garden itself, this dreamed-of lifestyle has never existed on earth. So many are in denial of this reality, and love to project this wonderful dream/desire onto native peoples in various parts of the world, prior to the 'corruption' of some group, usually more advanced civilizations with a need to expand because their systems of civilization were so successful at preserving human life that their populations grew quickly. (ie: Europe, The West. Not sure why China usually gets a pass.) But even though some wrongdoing was undoubtedly committed at some point in every case by the larger population, the same is true in most cases for the smaller, indigenous population. More importantly, the Native Americans, for instance, never lived the idealized life that was projected onto them. With less dense populations and less interaction, wars may have been less frequent. But raiding, murdering, raping, marauding and pillaging of other nearby tribes was very commonplace. James Cameron is educated enough to know this. Which is why he had to go to a distant planet to believably create such a civilization.




It's just a movie
By akse on 1/14/2010 1:25:57 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell, even if it was Vatican fighting war somewhere with Pope being the leader of the army.. it's just a freaking movie.




Mercenaries
By Robear on 1/12/2010 9:28:26 AM , Rating: 1
They were all ex-marines. Mercenaries. I think he's barking up the wrong tree. If anyone at all was following the plot, they were all hired by the corporation. If you apply some intelligence to the logic, any corporation trying to murder a species of tree-huggers would both lure and pursue some pretty hardcore mercs, and you'd end up with exactly what you had in the movie.

If anything, I thought it would be a benefit to the Military, getting kids hyped up about riding mechs when they grow up. Good publicity slapping around the top-grossing movie. Publicity stunt IMHO. It wasn't that bad.




By holymaniac on 1/12/2010 12:21:58 PM , Rating: 1
US Military is living in a fantasy of being heroes when they are acting on behalf of international corporate financial and power interests. They should get informed and do their true duty. Refuse to be an evil, aggressive force. Stop whining when your gig is exposed!!!




Thin skinned.
By xmichaelx on 1/12/2010 3:55:45 PM , Rating: 1
For an organization that exists solely to kill people, the Marines sure are pussies when it comes to criticism.

It's a movie. Movies are fictitious.




Ease up fella
By jojo29 on 1/12/2010 4:48:50 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but the USMC guy is over reacting. No movie, game, or whatever is gonna change what a person already thinks of our Military as a whole. With that being said, Cameron made it VERY clear that the military presence that was set up in Avatar was made up of a bunch of MERCENARIES aka not a disciplined unit like our military, let alone the marines, rangers, or delta for that matter.

Sorry, but as a person whose entire family has served in the Navy, US Army, USMC, my dad served on Navy, Army, Reserves, all the way up to Lt. Colonel i believe. I'm not trying to say i know what im talking about, im simply stating that coming i come from a huge family history of people serving n our military and i did NOT for ONE second think that this movie was "slamming" the military.

Why? Well for one its just a movie. Two, well, to me i perceived it as a greedy mining company who hired mercenaries...which is exactly what was told in the movie IF you even watched it you would know that...Mercenaries /= Military...




Think about what your writing
By Cometer on 1/13/2010 6:31:40 AM , Rating: 1
I'm amazed by some of the things people have commented around here.
Let me just say that I got a couple of friends in the marines and rangers and frankly I think people need to wake up and see things for what they are. This public relations guy IS making the wrong thing by turning this into something important to talk about.
I think the movie sends a pretty good message and that people should think about it. Because truth is in all military forces have been used to serve the purpose of the elite. Not the common people or the minorities. If we think otherwise were just being naives. This doesn't make it less of a honor being in a military force. Military forces are what keep nations from turning into anarchies. We need them, and this people die for us when shit goes really bad. So do pay respect. A LOT OF RESPECT. But let’s face it there hasn't been a single time is human history where a nation, democratic or not, hasn't used the military forces the wrong way. The Spanish wiped out the Inca civilization for gold. We all know about the native Americans but we have a lot of histories much closer to our reality. The English had the Apartheid. that the British had a democracy at home and a repressive system in other territories. Same goes for the French, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Germans, the Italians, the Chinese....Well you know what I mean. I think the movie is important because people need to be reminded that history can be repeated.




Avatar #1 for 4th weekend!
By Belard on 1/13/2010 7:02:24 AM , Rating: 1
Yep... Avatar #1 at $450mil for USA boxoffice alone.

Its even a better movie the 2nd time around, can't wait to see it again.

The USMC crybaby didn't read the credits where it said:

"The characters in this film are fictional and do not actually resemble actual places or persons..."

Now, if the USMC has a hidden Alien technology (rumored) and have a base on Pandora... then WE HAVE GOT TO KNOW and save the blue monkeys from the green meanies!




accuracy
By driver01z on 1/13/2010 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 1
Probably already been said, just wanted to add my $.02:
Maybe the movie shouldn't be representative as how the Marines/military act on their own - ok. But as far as how the US government acts? In the Revolutionary War, we killed the enemy in their sleep on Christmas... settlers gave "gifts" of diseased blankets to natives to kill them off... officials have certainly been involved with corporations in shady deals in the past (and likely in the present)... we are forcing our military now into countries and we aren't decided on the purpose of doing so... As far as comparing the movie to how some of our leaders (and humans in general) think - I don't think there was any exaggeration in the movie.




Poster child of stupid grunts...
By T2k on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
Marines?
By carigis on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
Yes, because being against war is such a bad thing
By Mithan on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
By Denigrate on 1/12/2010 8:23:44 AM , Rating: 4
Yup, it's the same as being against an earthquake or other natural disasters.


By knutjb on 1/12/2010 8:28:28 AM , Rating: 5
Being against war is not a bad thing. What is bad is Hollywood's perpetual denigration of business and the military as evil and mindless entities. That is what the USMC is objecting to.

The military is only a tool in the toolbox of international relations. Most in the military are against war because they are the ones who have to go, not you sitting at home thinking you're such a bad ass playing Modern Warfare in your mom's basement.

War is usually an unfortunate side affect of misguided and poorly planned diplomacy. Sometimes its the only tool left when a nation or group decides no matter how hard we try to not go to war they have already made up their minds to do so. WWII, Korea, the first Gulf war.

You don't know how lucky you are they exist. You probably could even get in anyway. Hey I think your Mom's calling you.


By Regs on 1/12/2010 9:06:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
War is usually an unfortunate side affect of misguided and poorly planned diplomacy.


There's only been 4000 or more years of war. I will have to agree with Durban on this one that human beings are inherently violent. Just need to know what button to push.
Our minds are a beautiful and dangerous tool. A normal human being can rationalize and understand the consequences of our actions, yet continue to indulge ourselves with the more primal and more easily rewarded cogitations. I can see why man created god, because we still can't explain the balance of good and evil within ourselves.

Avatar, or Hollywood in general, does not surprise me one bit. The response to such aggression is a predictable and scripted response of projection and displacement which are the same two traits that are to believed that cause war in the first place.


By jonmcc33 on 1/12/2010 9:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is bad is Hollywood's perpetual denigration of business and the military as evil and mindless entities. That is what the USMC is objecting to.


I could relate what happened in Avatar to what happened in the invasion of Iraq. It is a business actually. It's not good vs evil but who has the bigger military and ability to kill more people to push their agenda upon another country.

Even though our US military has minds of their own, they must follow orders at all times. That is why they are viewed as mindless drones. Normal civilians do not understand this "service before self" concept.

To be also fair, the ex-Marines depicted in Avatar are mercenaries and not an actual government sponsored military force.


By corduroygt on 1/12/2010 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Saddam attacked other countries.

That was in 1990 and he got his ass handed to him afterwards, not in 2003.
quote:
2. Saddam murdered his own people.

I fail to see how that's my problem. It's up to Iraqi citizens to stand up to their despotic government. I don't want to pay for their revolution and rebuilding their infrastructure.
quote:
3. Saddam ignored dozens of UN mandates, 4. Saddam broke dozens of said mandates knowingly.

That's the UN's problem, not solely ours, and it should have been resolved through the UN, instead of cowboying it.
quote:
5. Saddam had direct ties to terrorism and other do-baddies

Name one terror attack Saddam was responsible for in the US?
quote:
I mean, ok, we all know the weapons of mass destruction deal was a bad call.

If "Bad Call" is an euphemism for "Deliberate Lie", I agree.

Face it, Bush administration was only watching out for their own pockets when they invaded Iraq, not the citizens that elected them.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2010 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I fail to see how that's my problem.


Well with that attitude, nothing is worth discussing because none of this is "your" problem.

quote:
That's the UN's problem, not solely ours, and it should have been resolved through the UN, instead of cowboying it.


The UN has the power to write letters that get ignored, and make sanctions that get ignored. In other words, they can't RESOLVE anything without the military of it's members. So, visa-vi, it was our problem.

quote:
Face it, Bush administration was only watching out for their own pockets when they invaded Iraq, not the citizens that elected them.


Really ? The entire administration ? Clinton was impeeched for getting a blowjob in office and lying about it. In what world do you live in could Bush lie to Congress and the people, go to war just for money and oil, and nothing be done to him about it ? How could a guy so retarded, as you guys so often say, orchestrate such a dastardly conspiracy that's such common knowledge and yet he's untouchable for it ?

You guys are kooks, come off it already. I think it's so sad that you rationally believe that just to get money an entire administration would declare war. Do your realize how retarded that logic is ? It's one thing not to like a guy, but to cook up something that stupid shows real genuine malice.


By corduroygt on 1/12/2010 2:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Bush himself wasn't very smart but the people behind him like Karl Rove were very smart. Bush was just a popular figure, all that's required to be elected president really.

My conscience is clear since unlike you, I don't sanction the murdering of US and Iraqi people. Also please tell me why should the US care if Saddam murdered its own citizens? Oppressive governments all around the world do that every day and nothing is done about it.


By porkpie on 1/12/2010 9:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
"That's the UN's problem, not solely ours, and it should have been resolved through the UN, instead of cowboying it."

Funny, I bet when Clinton ignored the UN and "cowboy" attacked the Serbs over Kosovo, I bet you were cheering him all the way.


By porkpie on 1/12/2010 9:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
"1. Saddam attacked other countries. That was in 1990 and he got his ass handed to him afterwards, not in 2003"

The fact that Saddam failed to live up the peace treaty he signed over that 1990 war is the reason why the US attack in 2003 was justified, with or without UN approval.


RE: Yes, because being against war is such a bad thing
By croc on 1/12/2010 6:13:54 PM , Rating: 3
"So much wrong here..

"The whole point of the creation of the UN was to make sure that the world would no longer sit idle and watch tyranny rule a nation and wage war with others.

1. Israel attacked other countries.
2. Israel murdered its own people.
3. Israel ignored dozens of UN mandates.
4. Israel broke dozens of said mandates knowingly.
5. Israel had direct ties to terrorism and other do-baddies"

...And the US continues to supply the Israelis with funds to continue their "war on terrorism". Who runs the 'too big to fail' banks? Just asking....


By dxf2891 on 1/13/2010 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you just made the case for our invasion to Darfur. Oh wait, they're just a bunch of Africans who no one cares about and has no redeeming natural resource we can exploit (We did remove all of the gold and diamonds from Africa, right). The U.S. only uses its military might in areas that will directly benefit the U.S. Don't kid yourself into thinking we provide military aid due to social consciousness.


By Solandri on 1/12/2010 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is bad is Hollywood's perpetual denigration of business and the military as evil and mindless entities.

Considering that Hollywood movie and music studios are some of the most corrupt businesses on the planet, completely shameless in what they'll do to deprive people of their just compensation, I don't really blame the movie directors, actors, and musicians for being hyper-cynical about business. You just have to bear in mind that their opinions are more a reflection of Hollywood than business in general, even if they themselves don't seem to realize it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting


Wrong tree?
By GGA1759 on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wrong tree?
By hiscross on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong tree?
By Regs on 1/12/2010 8:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
We also need more taxes(sarcasm). No, not to better mass transit, roads, or other public work projects. But we need more taxes to take away from the rich and give service to the poor. And how ironic, the poor is complaining of high taxes too.


RE: Wrong tree?
By MrPoletski on 1/12/2010 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
Given its MUCH higher taxes (on the rich too), and that taxes choke and starve economies running them into the ground, and that higher taxes in the USA would destroy it...

Just how did the European economy end up bigger than the USA's?


RE: Wrong tree?
By delphinus100 on 1/12/2010 11:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Wrong tree?
By Octoberblue on 1/12/2010 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
The entire world, including Europe, has piggy-backed on the US economy for many decades. As always, if we really go down, (not this piddly little recession we're in), the rest of the world will crash even harder. Especially Europe.


RE: Wrong tree?
By Thirst4Knowledge on 1/13/2010 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ladys and Gentlemen I put it to you that this is direct result of sending your kids to a college where tokens from inside a cereal packet are deemed acceptable payment for tuition fees


RE: Wrong tree?
By hiscross on 1/12/2010 2:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
There are good reasons that some people are wealthy and some are poor. Wealthy people create wealth, poor people just spend money. No one should be made to give away their wealth to anyone who can't understand and manage money. The key to create wealth is ones ability to Think.


RE: Wrong tree?
By Jeffk464 on 1/12/2010 10:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think this can all be summed up with

Waaaa


What did you expect?
By klstay on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: What did you expect?
By zsdersw on 1/12/2010 8:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Get over it. It's a movie.

How would you like some real problems to deal with? There are plenty.


RE: What did you expect?
By Griswold on 1/12/2010 9:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
Get some self-esteem, you worthless PoS.


RE: What did you expect?
By Belard on 1/13/2010 5:28:52 AM , Rating: 1
Uh its a movie...

Even if it was propoganda... You agree that going to another land/country/planet taking their resources (without paying) and killing the people (men, women and children) for profit is a good thing?

With that type of thinking, you SHOULDn'T be pissed if China invades the USA.

But that is what we HUMANS did (and still do) to other humans for thousands of years.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki