backtop

Science Cameron: 'Avatar' Doesn't Slam USMC
Michael Barkoviak - January 27, 2010 7:00 AM
Print 83 comment(s) - last by sdfasdgdhasdf.. on Jan 30 at 12:55 PM
USMC Col. Salas and Avatar director James Cameron chat to discuss their different portrayals of Avatar

James Cameron, director of the hit movie Avatar, has responded to public criticism regarding his movie, and recently chatted with one critic who said Cameron's portrayal of the Marine Corps is unfair to current soldiers.

Col. Bryan Salas, United States Marine Corps Director of Public Affairs, created a controversy earlier in the month by claiming Avatar "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," in an open letter.

"The highly sympathetic main character of the film ... is a former Marine," Cameron noted in an e-mail to journalists.  "His courage in the face of overwhelming odds makes him a hero of mythic proportions by the end of the story."

Similar to Blackwater in Iraq, Avatar features former Marine Jake, a paraplegic who suffered war injuries, is recruited by Marine Col. Quaritch -- who has been hired by a third-party company -- leads a campaign to clear Na'Vi so humans can mine on the planet.  To successfully infiltrate the Na'vi ranks, Jake uses a sophisticated body and mind control to blend in to the best of his ability.

Furthermore, Cameron spoke with Col. Salas, and both sides were able to present their opinion and have a brief discussion of the USMC's stance on the film.

"Jake sets out to understand the indigenous people and learns to respect them and their value system, and in turn earns their respect ... I believe this exactly embodies the approach Col. Salas described to me," Cameron also mentioned.  "Although [Jake] is confined to a wheelchair because of a combat injury, he is unbowed and still a warrior, ready to take on the great challenge."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Yeah, right
By bug77 on 1/27/2010 7:16:26 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
His courage in the face of overwhelming odds makes him a hero of mythic proportions by the end of the story.


And he only has to fight all of his (invading, pillaging, savage, warmongering) comrades in order to do so. No slamming indeed.




RE: Yeah, right
By jabber on 1/27/2010 7:26:04 AM , Rating: 5
I guess the portrayal of USMC troops being used to invade, terrorise the native population and take control of a territory purely for financial/corporate gain is either pure fantasy or a little too close to the truth?

You decide.


RE: Yeah, right
By therealnickdanger on 1/27/2010 8:07:01 AM , Rating: 5
I have now seen the movie three times (I know, I know, I'm a sucker) and I don't get this. All the "marines" in the movie are no longer part of the military, but are mercenaries. Jake Sully lays this out in excellent detail the moment he arrives on Pandora in the shuttle. They are not there for honor, duty, or country, but for money, blood, and action.

The film could not be more clear. Some people are apparently overly sensitive. Are we (America) the first and only nation in the world to have soldiers called "marines"? Hardly. The story of Avatar, as I pointed out once before ( http://pw0nd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/avatar... ), can be paralleled to almost any point in the history of the world.

Much ado about nothing. Now bring on the sequels!


RE: Yeah, right
By tlbj6142 on 1/27/2010 8:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I think too many idiots have a hard time separating a dude with a gun and cool toys from the government supported forces. The movie is about the former, not the later.


RE: Yeah, right
By ZHENDHIDE4 on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah, right
By SublimeSimplicity on 1/27/2010 8:58:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
All the "marines" in the movie are no longer part of the military... They are not there for money, blood, and action.


So it's not a slam against the USMC, just the integrity of the men they produce. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.


RE: Yeah, right
By therealnickdanger on 1/27/2010 9:21:43 AM , Rating: 5
The men they produce? I can't speak on personal experience, but one four of my friends are officers in the military (Captain in the Marines, Lt. Col. in the Army, two Lts. in the USAF) and from what they tell me, most enlisted are respectful, obedient, and of high integrity when doing their jobs. However, they also tell me many stories about "punks", "a$$holes", and other such individuals that should never have been recruited in the first place.

These persons have a penchant for stupidity and/or illicit behavior that makes them a danger to themselves and to others. It was not learned during boot camp or in the field, but simply just who they are to begin with. Much like how alcohol or drugs don't make someone a douchebag, those chemicals just reveal what truly lies beneath.

Give a violent, macho a$$hole a gun and he becomes a violent, macho a$$hole with a gun. Same old story.


RE: Yeah, right
By Camikazi on 1/27/2010 9:25:14 AM , Rating: 3
Would you be happier if they were SEALS, Rangers or some other elite trained ex-military? Mercenaries have to be well trained so ex-military just make sense since they have the training and skills already. He just chose Marines, doesn't mean he has anything against them.


RE: Yeah, right
By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 10:03:22 AM , Rating: 3
Not even the USMC can separate a cold blooded killer from his natural capability.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/11/missing.marine...

You must have not heard of Leavenworth prison either (aka The Castle). Plenty of rapists and murderers in there from all US military branches.


RE: Yeah, right
By VaultDweller on 1/27/2010 10:41:42 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
So it's not a slam against the USMC, just the integrity of the men they produce. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's not a slam against the integrity of the men the USMC 'produces', it's a slam against the men who got the hell out of the USMC to take up a profession with higher pay and less integrity.


RE: Yeah, right
By Griswold on 1/27/2010 11:48:37 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, you're one numb idiot if you think that each and every single marine is a shining example for duty and honor and thus would never, ever, ever do anything that is morally questionable.

I suggest you wake up and see reality for what it is.


RE: Yeah, right
By dgingeri on 1/27/2010 11:55:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So it's not a slam against the USMC, just the integrity of the men they produce. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.


it's a slam against some of the men the USMC produces. Let's face it, human beings are far from perfect. There are some war mongering, power seeking jerks (I'd love to use stronger words there) that are in the military. However, that does not, and never has, describe all of them. I have known many honorable soldiers, and many bad ones. I'd say it's about a 3 to 1 ratio. In Avatar, we had 2 marines, not just one, who had gone mercenary and did not blindly follow orders. One even gave her life (a character's list, as it is) to defend the natives. I like to think I'd do the same under the circumstances.

Also, we must look into our past for certain things. There were times when our troops followed orders that led to terrible treatment of natives in certain areas. Andrew Jackson, while pushing our country in a direction for greatness and prosperity, did so with some very terrible policies. I personally don't like the idea of prospering due to those tactics, but I can't change the past either. We did have some Empire building in our past. You can't deny that.

We need to learn from that history so we do not repeat it. We can prosper without exploiting others. It can be done. Sometimes we need reminders of that history, such as this movie, in order to keep from going down that path again. While some may not agree with the way some soldiers are portrayed in this movie, it is something we need to see again, so that we remember, and so that we don't repeat it.

Maybe someday we will find another planet with life on it. Maybe someday we will see something we want on that planet. We will need reminders like this movie so that we don't do as before. What was done was wrong. I won't support doing it again. However, if future generations don't learn this same lesson, humanity will go down that road again.


RE: Yeah, right
By rippleyaliens on 1/27/2010 8:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
MEN THEY PRODUCE... Well Jake has a valid point, in the intro of the movie, which resembles this country..
The VA wouldnt fix his spine injury, not on va benefits, but with corporate money he could get it fixed..

SAME AS REAL LIFE..
Do you think Black Water XE, is for burnouts? Same thing.. Mega money for the same skills.. The USMC makes one thing very well.. Warriors.. Some are noble, most are hardcore, and ALL OF THEM require the same thing as any service member does.. PAY.. First and foremost..


RE: Yeah, right
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 9:58:20 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you that it is clear they are former marines. However, they keep calling themselves marines and using their terms, so I understand why the Col. is upset. I think it would have been better and made more sense if they just said Soldier instead of Marine. I would believe a group of mercenaries would come from all branches (Navy, Marines, Army, Air force) not just Marines.. but all are Soldiers.

Still I'll watch the movie again, and probably again after that, then maybe again, and after all that I'll buy it on DVD or BlueRay and watch it again...


RE: Yeah, right
By dxf2891 on 1/27/2010 11:32:34 AM , Rating: 4
There is that unofficial saying, "Once a Marine, Always a Marine." As a member of the "World's Largest Fraternity," we can't pick and choose who that monicker is applied to. If you earn the the Eagle, Globe and Anchor, then you earn the right to be called Marine, now and forever. If you decide to behave badly during or after your stint (Lee Harvey Oswald, Oliver North) that doesn't mean you haven't earned what you earned.


RE: Yeah, right
By Griswold on 1/27/2010 11:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. But that doesnt fit into the pretty little picture of certain people and thats why we have silly debates like this over a fictional movie - a debate that wouldnt even exist if avatar wasnt such a huge exist.

Its really ridiculous and hypocritical.


RE: Yeah, right
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
The USMC has been around for over 200 years now... Captain Samuel Nicholas formed two battalions of Continental Marines on 10 November 1775 well that is what wikipedia says.

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

It has experience much more difficult battles then this Avatar movie. I'm sure it will survive this assault too.. :)

I believe the Col. is just tired of Hollywood being bias against the US military and taking jabs wherever and whenever they can. There are bad apples in all human groups; military, church, politics, sport teams, and all others. Some groups have more bad apples then others. The USMC has a few bad apples but the majority are not bad apples. I think in a real world case you would have more Marines acting like the female pilot in this movie... at one point it would be to much. However, the movie leaves you thinking these are just cold hearted b*st*rds. Which is wrong and un-fair per the Col


RE: Yeah, right
By Kefner on 1/27/2010 11:01:17 AM , Rating: 3
Really, have people who write this stuff actually seen the movie. I am tired of hearing of this, THEY WERE NOT MARINES! THEY WERE MERCS! There is no news here!!!! THERE WERE NO MARINES, THIS WAS NOT THE MILITARY INVADING SOME PLANET!!!! The main character was also just a last minute addition to this MERC squad, and had no relationship with the vast majority of these MERCs, so he wasn't attacking his "drinking buddies" or whatever.


RE: Yeah, right
By dxf2891 on 1/27/2010 11:18:53 AM , Rating: 3
I think the confusion happens when the misnomers like you just made are left unchecked. Marines are not soldiers. Soldiers are members of the United States Army, where as Marines are members of the United States Marine Corps. You may call it symantics if you like, but there is a difference. In all honesty, serving with both Marines and soldiers, there is a difference in discipline. Every once in a while you'd come across a soldier who was 100% business, crisp and no non-sense. Every Marine I have ever encountered fits that discription to a tee. That's not a slam on soldiers or the Army, it's just that if there were no difference, why would there be a distinction. The Army produces soldiers, the Marine Corps produces warriors.


RE: Yeah, right
By deltadeltadelta on 1/27/2010 11:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, what we are talking about antivirus companies? Couldn't resist... It's spelled "semantics". Doubtless, I have now made a grammatical faux pas of the worst kind in my comment which will cause me to be jumped upon by the masses and quite deservedly so.... :)


RE: Yeah, right
By rcc on 1/27/2010 3:31:16 PM , Rating: 3
I'm guessing that the Royal Marines, or the German army may object to your limiting what they can be called, but if it works for you, go for it.

Beyond that, I understand what you are trying to say.

: )


RE: Yeah, right
By rika13 on 1/28/2010 7:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
as a type of unit, marine refers to infantry forces used for shipboard operations (security, boarding, landings, etc); when used within a nation and capitalized, refers to either the USMC or Royal Marines

soldier refers to regular (aka standing army, forces that maintain combat readiness during peace time) land forces

reservist/auxiliary refers to auxiliary forces (the Army Reserve for example), which are not maintained under arms, but have military training and equipment available to them for use when needed


RE: Yeah, right
By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 9:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
+1

Can we get a 6?


RE: Yeah, right
By Hiawa23 on 1/27/2010 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
I guess the portrayal of USMC troops being used to invade, terrorise the native population and take control of a territory purely for financial/corporate gain is either pure fantasy or a little too close to the truth?

You decide.

I must admit the first time I saw this movie, my first feeling was wow, subsitute Iraq, or any other country in for the tribespeople,the boss guy with the golf clubs for corporations, change that crystal to oil, the military for the our military & wow, & seems like an accurate portrayal, especially the shock & Awe comment.

Just my feeling. That aside, generally when I go to movies I go to enjoy em for the entertainment value, not look for messages & I have seen this one twice will go this weekend to see it for a final time before I get my DVD copy, & I thought it was fantastic. I suspect the critics will get over it. Life will go on, just a movie, a fantasy movie. It may be tough for some to look in the mirror.


RE: Yeah, right
By GourdFreeMan on 1/27/2010 10:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
I have only read the plot summary of the movie, but the target has to be British (or less likely some other European) imperialism. The only time I am aware of the US behaving in a manner even remotely close to what you describe is the fall of the Hawaiian monarchy. In every other case we have either been against imperialism, or had a history of violence with the native people that cannot be reduced to naive one-sided aggression.

Of course one cannot discount ignorance on the part of the writer or the audience... (one of the two is almost a certainty as in the real world the indigenous people have always lost... at least temporarily, unless they rapidly modernized and engaged with other nations economically).

(If you don't like the US armed forces you are welcome to have lived under either direct British imperialism, Soviet utopia-seeker exploitation, or German policies of extermination depending upon who would have won the second World War had we not intervened.)


RE: Yeah, right
By robinthakur on 1/29/2010 6:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
Erm, as a Brit watching the movie for the first time, the attitude to the indigenous population reminded me of the American Indians' ("flea-bitten savages"), the whole going there for that ore plot device reminded me of Iraq and the US and UK going to war to secure the friendly oil reserves (though it has happened countless times in history where wars have been fought over material x, Iraq serves as the most recent example) The fact that all the humans had very obvious American accents and there was no internationalisation there, means that it never really registered with me even with the token disclaimer at the beginning that they are just there for money and are not part of the US military.

The "Shock and Awe" comment and the Home Tree falling like one of the Twin Towers only really reinfored this...the only thing missing was a detained and beaten Navii in an orange jumpsuit and a hood being waterboarded while RATM plays at ear-splitting levels in the background! The attitude to the envinronment was also very American, although I think this would have resonated more had Avatar been released before Obama came to power when George W was still in office

FYI, I'm not anti-war but I am pro-honesty. I respectfully say that Avatar is generally anti-US, anti-military and anti-corporation whilst being pro-environmentalism and pro-spiritualism.


RE: Yeah, right
By Belard on 1/27/2010 7:29:56 AM , Rating: 1
Er yeah... because what the humans were doing, were wrong. Not honest, respectful, honor or humane.

Oh and the "heros" are not fighting USMC. Just guns for hire AKA Blackwater or whatever they call themselves these days to hide their shame.

Hmmm... not much difference.


RE: Yeah, right
By Lerianis on 1/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah, right
By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 10:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
I am anti-war myself but your comments are insanely retarded.


RE: Yeah, right
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 10:23:06 AM , Rating: 3
learn some history before talking... Bush report facts as given to him. If they were incorrect it does not make them a lie, just makes them wrong. Many of these statement have not be proven correct, but also have not been proven wrong... like the chemicals... very easy to move a small suitcase of chemicals so were they there or not? We just do not know, except that the US provided Iraq with may of these chemical for study reasons.... so at one time they were there, how much is the better question, was there production.... (never a question of was there chemicals).

"Not to mention, keep our fight against terrorism from being framed as a 'War Against Islam' like Chimp-In-Chief portrayed it as being!"

This view has nothing to do with Bush or the USA. To me and many Non-Muslim, Islam and Muslim are the same thing... Just like others believe all forms of Christianity are the same.
So, when Muslims keep running around blowing themselves up along with innocent people around them, or hi-jacking a plane, killing people just because these others have a different believe and NO one of the Islam or Muslim world stands up and says their brother in religion was complete wrong and should have not harmed those innocent targets or tries to stop these actions.... Well they are only harming themselves. Just simple fact, Muslims have given themselves the terrorist image, so it's up to the Muslims and Islams to improve this image if they want it stopped... Not the rest of the world. A good first step would be to stop giving honor to suicided bombers. Think about it, how crazy does that sound...


RE: Yeah, right
By maven81 on 1/27/2010 10:40:08 AM , Rating: 3
"learn some history before talking... Bush report facts as given to him."

Now that's what I call ironic.
It should be obvious by now that the admin simply ignored any information that contradicted their notions, and manufactured intelligence to support what they thought.
It's time to stop living in denial.


RE: Yeah, right
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 11:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Really have any real proof? I mean real proof, not just stories. Like there is proof that the CDC in Atlanta Georgia provide Iraq with chemical like: Small pox, Anthrax and others chemicals for their scientist to study. they were to report and record the destruction of these chemicals after their study was complete. They never did of course. This was during the mid 90's. We never could catch them with chemicals because as the investigators stated, we have to give them 7 day notice per the UN before entering the suspected building by the time the 7 days have passed the building is completely emptied out. So, they had to report no chemicals. Now even the investigators knew something was up, but had their hands tied... I mean come on, why would you empty a build in 7 days if you were not doing something funny.. If you remember watching the news during this time frame, you should also remember watching them going into completely empty builds... At the time I always wonder why are they going into buildings that never have people in them. It was later when I heard an interview with an investigator that I understood that just a week earlier there was a flurry of activity in that building... and they would show video of this activity. There would be people all around the build, trucks coming and going. So, how did Bush's people get a foreign investigator and Saddam to comply to help them manufacture a story?


RE: Yeah, right
By maven81 on 1/27/2010 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty funny, you ask for real proof and what do you have? Stories.
Now let's take what Bush actually said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". This was based on intelligence documents that turned out to be forgeries remember?
or how about these nuggets...
"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles"."Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

Then we have this one from a former defense official:
"for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

Finally Cheney himself...
"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true"

So... are you going to listen to your news reports? Or the former vice precident?


RE: Yeah, right
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm I do think it's funny, I give you a source to prove my statement fact (Like there is proof that the CDC in Atlanta Georgia provide Iraq with chemical like: Small pox, Anthrax and others chemicals for their scientist to study), however you call it a story. You on the other hand spew out story after story putting it in quote but giving no source for your stories. As I said, real proof... You can look up what I said through CDC... Where is your proof.
P.S. since you are new at understand what proof is, for your quotes find the video that has these words you are using coming from the person real lips not just your media center report on what Cheney or someone else said... I mean come on you do not even list where you are getting your quotes from. Stop telling stories and start showing proof... The media has filled your head so full of it. They change the words and means of peoples quotes and you believe them. There usually small nuggets of truth in most quotes but not what you think... That's why in today's world you need the video of someone saying the quote and even still that can be messed with.
So far you have shown nothing factually that is with a source to go review...


RE: Yeah, right
By maven81 on 1/27/2010 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Whom are you kidding? These are direct quotes. Even if I could get Cheney himself to call you and tell you he lied about the reasons for going to war, you'd still claim that no one lied. You can search for the quotes in a search engine of your choice and verify for yourself if they are legit or not instead of taking my word for it.

The CDC is completely irrelevant here. No one said that Saddam never had chemical or biological weapons in the past. The important thing is whether he still had them at the time of the invasion, and whether he had any capability to use them against anyone. All the evidence says that the answer to both of these is no.


RE: Yeah, right
By bodar on 1/27/2010 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Yeah, right
By Belard on 1/28/2010 7:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
Bush himself, said he'd go into Iraq some how or another because "they wanted to kill my daddy".

He admitted this.

And YES, before the first bombs dropped, CIA and others were saying the "intel" was a problem. And of course, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. These ALARMS were going off, people were talking about it.

And the most people like YOU and Bush and Cheney can say is "oops?"

Say OOPS to the 4000+ dead Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians.


RE: Yeah, right
By F4iHorn on 1/27/2010 8:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
They most certainly did have ballistic missiles that could reach Israel. Saddam actually turned them over just before the deadline Bush gave him. This was a violation of the cease fire agreement in 91.

Refusing to allow UN inspectors into the country was also a violation of the cease fire agreement. To me, weather he had WMD's or not is irrelevant. Both countries signed an agreement for the US to end hostilities and allow the current regime to stay in power if they followed the rules set fourth in the document. Saddam did not; therefore we had every right, in fact a responsibility to continue hostilities to remove him from power.

If we had this same policy in the late 30's do you not think that would have had a positive effect? I think the hundreds of millions of people that died shortly afterward would.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". This was based on intelligence documents that turned out to be forgeries remember?
I remember not that long ago a story in the Dailytech about tons of yellow cake uranium being shipped from Iraq to Canada to be refined into fuel for nuclear power plants. Where did they get that from? What do you think they were going to use it for? Their nonexistent nuclear power plant? I don't blame you for not catching that one. The media barely covered it, and even when they did there was no connection made with WMD's. I wonder why. Never heard of the forgery argument before, just the "Bush pressured them" argument. I guess I just don't go to the right websites. You would think if there was proof of that the Democrat majority congress would want to impeach Bush over that. They were discussing impeaching him for much less than forging intelligence reports from other countries in order to go to war. But they don't seem to have a problem with Joe Biden so who knows.


RE: Yeah, right
By Hiawa23 on 1/27/2010 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Now that's what I call ironic.
It should be obvious by now that the admin simply ignored any information that contradicted their notions, and manufactured intelligence to support what they thought.
It's time to stop living in denial.

I agree, it's clear to me someone lied about Iraq, or did not pay attention to other reports. You want to talk about our economy being in such straits, look at all the money & lives wasted over there, & for what....Well, we did get Hussein....


RE: Yeah, right
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2010 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, it's clear to me someone lied about Iraq, or did not pay attention to other reports. You want to talk about our economy being in such straits, look at all the money & lives wasted over there, & for what....Well, we did get Hussein....


Except that Democrats in Congress set out to prove this was done, several times, and failed. Are you suggesting a fraud this massive in scale, involving dozens or maybe hundreds of government officials and several departments, could actually be pulled off and nobody have proof of it ?

That's like you cooks who believe 911 was done by our own government. Come off it, silly conspiracies.


RE: Yeah, right
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2010 12:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs&feature...

Bill Clinton saying there was clear evidence of Iraq WMD program. I guess he was part of the Bush conspiracy too ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature...

Al Gore saying the same thing. "Weapons of mass destruction are a grave threat". I guess he's in on it too huh ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&feature...

A whole slew of democrats saying the same thing as Bush did. Also saying "he gave aid and sanctuary to terrorist". Even Hillary Clinton said it !!! Remember most of these sat on the Congressional Intelligence Committee. You can't claim they were lied to, they were viewing RAW intelligence.

Face it, you guys are dupes. The Democrats had the same intelligence as Bush had and made the same conclusions. Then when it turned out to be bad intelligence, did what Democrats always do. Never take a stand and turn tail to look more popular.

There is no conspiracy. The only lie was from Democrats.


RE: Yeah, right
By maven81 on 1/27/2010 12:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
Can you read?! The president and vice president themselves have admitted that what they said was not true. Now some of the sympathizers here want to absolve them of all responsibility for that, because by their logic not telling the truth somehow does not equal lying.
But you want to stick your head in the sand and spin. Nice try.


RE: Yeah, right
By Hiawa23 on 1/27/2010 2:01:00 PM , Rating: 3
That's like you cooks who believe 911 was done by our own government. Come off it, silly conspiracies.

Cooks, come on, what is that supposed to be? I am no cook. Hey, we can have a difference of opinion, but some of you go way overboard on these message boards. This whole dems VS Repub political nonsense is adding to many issues this country faces, one of the reasons nothing will get done no matter who is in power as the other side will do all they can to trash, or block em in the name of looking good for their base. I am on the side of how do we cure many of our ills, not pick one side & stay on that side while bashing the other side.


RE: Yeah, right
By dgingeri on 1/27/2010 12:13:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As to Al-Qaida and their ilk? Better solved with police actions and international cooperation to make the lives of the terrorists HORRIBLE and make it so that they don't want to become terrorists because of that.


yeah, because that worked so well before...

guess what? Much of this trouble came to us, including 9/11, because our so called allies failed to cooperate. France and Germany even sold weapons to Iraq, that much was confirmed many times over, that made their way to the hands of the men who attacked the hotel in Mumbai. Even though there was an arms embargo again Iraq from the UN, France and Germany, the government, not just corporations, sold weapons to Iraq, and those weapons made their way into hands that used them against us and, later, against innocents in India.

Police action, policies, and diplomacy doesn't work against terrorist organizations. Even intelligence actions don't work if they're hidden in other countries. We didn't start this war, and I'll be damned if I let them get away with killing 3000 innocents over a "legal loop hole" such as them not being a sovereign nation.

Do you propose letting them just keep attacking us just because you don't want to comply with some stupid legal loop hole? Or is it just because it was Bush that was in office when it happened? Is you idealism because you want to take a high stand, or is it just because the Republicans are behind it? You're not fooling anyone. You're entire diatribe isn't because you are taking any moral stand, you just oppose anything Republicans want.

I'm no Republican. I take my own stand, outside of parties. I have half my positions on one side and half on the other. I happen to be more of a Libertarian, but not quite there either. Get the government out of my business and my wallet, tax us a little less, and spend a lot less. Don't go declaring that I oppose you just because I'm conservative. I'm not completely, but I am partially.


RE: Yeah, right
By VaultDweller on 1/27/2010 7:42:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And he only has to fight all of his (invading, pillaging, savage, warmongering) comrades in order to do so. No slamming indeed.

Yes, he fought all of his former non-Marine, mercenarycomrades.

The movie is a condemnation of mercenaries and corporate greed, not the USMC.


RE: Yeah, right
By Lerianis on 1/27/2010 7:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't like it, then you wouldn't like the reality as well. The fact is that when the Army, Navy and Air Force are portrayed in this way, it is MORE FAIR and TRUTHFUL than when we portray them as 'heroes' and the people they are fighting against as 'evil'.

In fact, if I had my way... MILITARY GONE! With our nuclear weapons, we simply do not NEED the military anymore in this country, and everyone with a brain knows that.

Our military is just too much of a temptation for some people (mainly conservative and yes.... WARMONGERS) to use it to change the governments of other countries, as Bush used it to do that.

Sure, you can say that "Congress declared war!" Yeah, what the HELL else were even the DEMOCRATS going to do AFTER Bush sent the soldiers into these countries!
I don't think they were legitimately going to say "No, no declaration of war!" AFTER we were already in the toilet, as they say.


RE: Yeah, right
By Camikazi on 1/27/2010 9:29:04 AM , Rating: 2
Just gotta say, nukes alone will not keep a country safe. The military is needed for protection, unless you plan on dropping a nuke on your own country when others invade.


RE: Yeah, right
By Griswold on 1/27/2010 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well, this whole mind-game is silly, but i'll bite anyway.

If "others" invade, you just turn the place they came from into a huge, steaming parking lot. "They" know that and thats why "they" wont come.

Besides that, I dont agree with the idea of having no military as a defense force.

Military can be useful. Look at haiti and what a excellent job the armed forces are doing there. That is also the military. And you can also see armed forces from other nations do such things in other countries.

A military force doesnt need to be a tool primarily used to wage wars abroad - thats a concept the united states should consider from time to time.

Theres a reason why some say that the best soldier is the soldier who doesnt have to use his weapon. Its true in so many ways.


RE: Yeah, right
By dgingeri on 1/27/2010 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Let me show you this:

http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=7776

the fact of the matter is that our military is the only thing keeping you able to state your opinions.

If other people had their say, you'd be worshipping in a mosque every day and working 12 hours in a mine for half as much money as you need to eat.

I don't give a rat's patoot what you say, I'll defend the right to say it with my life if needed. This world is not do friendly that force is not needed. humanity is not so innocent that you can go without someone to defend you. That must be pretty obvious to you, even if you are mentally retarded.

(Note: retarded does not denote an insult to those lacking mental capacity. Those people usually use everything they have, and I honor them. The real definition of retarded is "slowed down" or people who have the mental capacity, but refuse to use it.)


RE: Yeah, right
By chagrinnin on 1/27/2010 1:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
And then there's mandatory retardment at 65. :P


RE: Yeah, right
By dgingeri on 1/27/2010 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
I happen to be a 37 year old server admin working at a multi million dollar data center. All with self taught skills and no college degree.

Mensa said I have a 170 IQ, back when I was a member 12 years ago. (I let my membership lapse because I felt the money for dues could be spent better elsewhere.) I got a perfect on the logical reasoning section of the exam, but my verbal skills were only just above average. I also got that perfect score in less than half the 40 minute time limit.

I have it. I use it.


RE: Yeah, right
By tommygun71 on 1/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah, right
By dgingeri on 1/27/2010 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Democracy my a$$, its all about the oil.


Really?? Then how is it that the oil production from Iraq still hasn't returned to pre-war levels? How is it that we're paying more for it that we were before the war? (The Iraqis are making more profit, and good for them.) You really know nothing about what is going on there.

The fact of the matter is that no American company has made a profit form Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody has except the Iraqis and Afghans, well, the regular Iraqis and Afghans anyway. Sure, the power hungry oppressors of both countries have lost, but I'm good with that.

I love how you support the power hungry, both here and in the rest of the world, and push policies that will eliminate the middle class, leaving a Hollywood and old money elite as the new aristocracy. (Why do you think those rich bastards support the liberal agenda?) All while saying you're pushing for Democracy.

you're such a total fool.


RE: Yeah, right
By chagrinnin on 1/27/2010 1:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
You never heard of Halliburton? You dont remember Exxon posting unheard of record profits?


RE: Yeah, right
By dgingeri on 1/27/2010 2:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Haliburton has stated that they'd be making more money with those employees here in the states or in europe.

Exxon's profits weren't on the oil, and none of their oil was bought from Iraq. Most of Iraq's oil went elsewhere because it is heavy crude, which our refineries can't handle. The refineries in the US handle light, sweet crude because of the lack of contaminants. (The EPA keeps us from developing refinery technology that would handle heavy crude due to pollution concerns.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_crude_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_crude

Exxon got most of their profit, including the major rise over the previous year, from importing oil from Nigeria and refining it into gasoline. The big gas price inflation we had not too long ago, which is what caused our current recession more than anything else, happened because OPEC, pushed by Hugo Chavez, reduced the supply of oil that we could refine. Once that supply dried up, the price of gasoline went way up to the point where it would cost refiners $1.90 to refine the gas, but then sold it for $4 per gallon.

the way this caused our recession is that once the gas prices went up, people couldn't afford as much spending on non-vital things, and went out less.
Some couldn't pay their mortgages because of it.
With less credit card spending, and mortgages that were on the edge of viable, the banks lost money.
The lost money caused many banks to go under or severely restrict loaning.
This caused companies to not have as many resources to do projects, causing them to restrict spending.
Many contractors (as many companies are using contractors instead of direct hires to do much of their work) lost their jobs, and spending dropped further, and the banks lost more mortgages and credit card profits
a tight spiral of loss of jobs -> decreased loans from banks -> decreased spending from corporations led to the severe slowdown.

All this started because of Hugo Chavez. Personally, I think it's an act of war, but we got back at them anyway because of reduced corporate spending in his country, causing a far more massive economic slowdown there than here. He hurt himself and his people far more than he hurt us, and companies making gasoline made huge profits, not from the oil, but from what they did with it.


RE: Yeah, right
By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 9:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And he only has to fight all of a (invading, pillaging, savage, warmongering) corporation in order to do so.


Corrected for accuracy.


RE: Yeah, right
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2010 10:39:40 AM , Rating: 3
You guys need to wake up and see the big picture. You are too hung up on the details. The film is an allegory about America's place in the world, our evil white greed, military expansionism, the war in Iraq, etc etc all wrapped up into one movie. Everyone, except Avatar fans, seems to see this very clearly. Go to any respectable movie forum, people get it, you don't but they do.

It doesn't matter that they are "ex marines", Cameron's true message is clear as crystal.

I would have respect for Liberals like Cameron if he would just come out and be honest for a change. If he would just say " Yes, this is how I feel and I made a movie to portray that. ", while I wouldn't agree with him, I would at least respect him for it. Everyone has a right to an opinion in this country, something plenty of "bloodthirsty pillaging murderers" died to ensure for you, Mr Cameron.

Why don't you make a movie about the 12 thousand bloodthirsty pillaging murdering Marines in Haiti right now doing humanitarian aid for complete strangers in a strange land? Something they do damned well every time they are called to, no matter when why or where.


RE: Yeah, right
By ClownPuncher on 1/27/2010 11:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
It is much easier to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a handful. If I had to be objective about it, I would probably need to take a nap in the middle, rational thought is tiring.


RE: Yeah, right
By OBLAMA2009 on 1/27/2010 6:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
marines are cowardky thugs. murdering women, children and navi isnt ok just because youre doing it in the employment of america


RE: Yeah, right
By FastEddieLB on 1/27/2010 7:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by your description of them I'm sure you'd fit right in.


RE: Yeah, right
By Hiawa23 on 1/27/2010 10:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
Although, I am not a believer in religion, I believe something or some diety created the world but i don't believe he/she is sitting up there logging everyone's transgressions on some tablet, nor do I think he/she hears prayers as I think everything that happens in our lives happens cause it's supposed to happen, no matter what you do or who you pray to, so the movie really did not offend me, or shake my views. If there was some great all powerful being up there, it would be nice to prevent things like hurricanes or earthquakes, or things like poverty. Back on topic, It's a movie that really did not make my life worse or better, but I loved it. I honestly can't see why many would have issues with this movie. The movie doesn't destroy your beliefs, or shouldn't shake your faith. I get really sick the religious folks trying to push their values & views on the rest of us. If you don't agree with the movie don't go see the movie or his movies. Simple...


Sorry disagree with you Mr Camron
By FXi on 1/27/2010 7:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Agree with the poster above, it casts the military in a bad light. Whether that's forgiveable given the fantasy intent of the film is up to us.




RE: Sorry disagree with you Mr Camron
By VaultDweller on 1/27/2010 7:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
How can it cast the military in a bad light, when the military do not appear in the movie? The company uses hired mercs, not the military. Some of those mercs had military experience, but during the events in the movie they were all private sector thugs.


RE: Sorry disagree with you Mr Camron
By Lerianis on 1/27/2010 7:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, hired mercs from what I have seen have higher standards than the military do. I.E. they won't just kill civilians or children because someone tells them to, they would more shoot the person who gave that order.


By Gunbuster on 1/27/2010 8:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes much higher standards. They just rape coworkers and get protection from the company. Classy


RE: Sorry disagree with you Mr Camron
By Aloonatic on 1/27/2010 8:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
I take it that in whatever country you are from you haven't seen any of the news footage of mercs and "private security contractors" on the news, rolling down the street shooting indiscriminately. There's plenty on you tube, or at least there used to be.

Not saying that they are all like it of course, but to suggest that they have higher standards than professional (US/UK) soldiers (who are not perfect of course) seems a little odd.


By seamonkey79 on 1/27/2010 9:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
Not when you take into account the asinine hatred of the military so many people seem to have now. Anything would be better than the military, even being controlled by someone else, I would suppose.


By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 10:13:30 AM , Rating: 2
You apparently have not been paying attention to Blackwater and how they have been banned from Iraq for killing innocent civilians?

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

This is 2 years old so please update your references.


RE: Sorry disagree with you Mr Camron
By rcc on 1/27/2010 3:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
You are so flippin' clueless it hurts. Perhaps you should study the actions of mercenaries on the African continent of the last 50 years?


Cameron has ties to USMC
By hausmckinney on 1/27/2010 7:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
Cameron's brother served in USMC. If you notice there is almost always something USMC related in every movie he has ever made.




RE: Cameron has ties to USMC
By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
No USMC in Titanic. Sorry.


RE: Cameron has ties to USMC
By GodisanAtheist on 1/27/2010 11:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
"Iceberg, STARBOARD BOW!"

"GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!"


Hammer Meet Nail
By 2IRRC on 1/27/2010 7:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
The most important take away for anyone with the ability of critical thinking is this;

The vast majority of soldiers in the military will do as they are told. That is why they are soldiers. The military as a whole does not take kindly to disobedience of any kind.

However some soldiers will disobey based on their own moral compass and will.

Soldiers cannot be judged, as a society, based on how they feel but what they do. That defines soldiers and that is reality.

Furthermore it is dishonest and blatant propaganda to suggest that anyone who once wore a uniform should be treated as a true patriot when they leave for better pay as a mercenary. Soldiers within the military that pride themselves for their service to their country, be it right or wrong, dislike mercenaries and do not consider them worthy of such honor.

In short Col. Salas is pandering and people like this should be exposed as such.




RE: Hammer Meet Nail
By jonmcc33 on 1/27/2010 10:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Soldiers within the military that pride themselves for their service to their country, be it right or wrong, dislike mercenaries and do not consider them worthy of such honor.


Blackwater is composed mostly of former US military. The founders of Blackwater were former Navy SEALs.


I'm sure Indians out there are upset as well...
By tviceman on 1/27/2010 8:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
Over the sudden lack of intelligence the Na'vi suddenly displayed when it came to organizing their stand at the giant tree. It took a human to show the indigenous how to fight back and that bows and arrows can't hurt massive helicopters/gunships.

Anyone offended just needs to get over it and realize it was a movie meant for entertainment.




By GodisanAtheist on 1/27/2010 11:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
While an entertaining movie, I agree that trying to derive too much politics out of it is a recipe for madness.

Its ultimately another twist on the age old "noble savage" dung heap.


Cameron
By Griswold on 1/27/2010 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
He shouldnt even respond to such ridiculous allegations. Not worth any intelligent persons time.




RE: Cameron
By Hiawa23 on 1/27/2010 12:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
He shouldnt even respond to such ridiculous allegations. Not worth any intelligent persons time.

I agree to a point. It's just a movie, & he has every right to make any movie as he sees fit. If you agree great, if you don't don't go see his movies. The movie did not change my view of how I view our country, corporations, & our military. I don't agree with the politicians easily sending many of our young people to their deaths then give em a medal, like that really makes any difference to a grieving family, but I have nothing but the highest respect for our Men & Women in the Armed Services. I had 2 brothers go in & get out(Thank God), before they were harmed, but it was never an option for me, & I can't say I would want any of my children to go in, unless it was a last option.


The movie was pretty clear
By KoolAidMan1 on 1/27/2010 7:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
Jake's narration at the beginning couldn't be more clear, those soldiers weren't there to "defend freedom" as they had in the corps, they were there "for the money".

They were mercenaries hired by the corporation, end of story.




My 2p (3c)
By Aloonatic on 1/27/2010 8:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
It's not about the military/USMC (former USMC mercs in this case) or what they do. They are just a tool, and it's about how they are used.

Also, if you want to take this all too seriously and go too far (it's all juts make-believe people) where are the Earth/UN forces overseeing the operations? Surely (in any reasonable universe) there would be a boat load of journalists, UN peeps and whatnot there. If Cameron had wanted to be more harsh he could easily have had a sub-plot of an embedded reporter who was strong armed into a positive spin by corrupt government/the company involved and so on.

Oh, I just remembered that I really don't care all that much, just wanted to make the point that the USMC and most other military forces just do what they are told, it's other people how make the decision and tell them who to point their guns at. Not to reason why, do and die etc.




There is ONE marine in the film
By webstorm1 on 1/27/2010 10:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
The protagonist Jake Sully is a former marine, who lives up to the ideals set forth in the first narration of the film. He is the hero, and he does it through compassion and empathy as much as force of arms. I don't see any way possible to paint the USMC in a more positive light.

As has been mentioned the rest of the military force is mercenaries for hire. They will do anything for the money and the leader is a bloodthirsty person. Another member of the merc force also refuses to bomb the village as well, and anyone could have made that choice.




OLD Post
By rippleyaliens on 1/27/2010 7:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
I posted something before but was deleted or something.. BUT Hearing from this Col in the politcal portion of the marine corps is normal.. Pencil pushing warriors covering their 6..Not to be taken seriously..
BUT After seeing the movie, THIS was and is a good representation of Marines in general. From the Col..Being a bad ass.. a hard ass, but more so.. Doing his job, accurately.

Jake's.. EVEN BETTER.. This movie rocks.. A marine, even one that cant walk, stillll willing to do what it takes. YET even handicaped has compassion.. UH RAH..

Back to the Col.. Leadership style, on par with my old BN Commander. Lead from the Front.. If mission is to put fta,, then do it.. Granted, they were all MERC's.. So no longer Marines (active duty)..




Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/2010 12:55:20 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











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