comment #1

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

The pic of Abbie Cornish looks EXACTLY like Nicole Kidman in Fur.

Freaky.

Stop/Loss will be a loss.

comment #2

T. Holly says ...

What do you know? You play in a college guitar contest.

comment #3

T. Holly says ...

You sell the sexy, young cast including Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum. Get them all out promoting it on TRL, the Ten Spot, host SNL, and what have you.

comment #4

Noah says ...

If the movie is any good, then shouldn't it be enough for us that it got made? Why should we care how much money it makes and what that says about this country? If we like the movie, then that should be enough pleasure. It's weird how box office has become a sport, with people "rooting" for their favorite teams and such. Box office is just marketing, so who gives a shit who the best marketer is?

comment #5

Alan Cerny says ...

I think that trailer's idiotic. And I'm a lefty.

comment #6

Sean says ...

"but some of us care about making good films that we'll be proud of 20 years later."

Maybe they should make films about timeless subject matters, then... Because it sure looks like her motivation here is to make something "relevant" and "modern" and "today", but which will age like uncorked wine.

"Goddam Rubeville, Redville...whatever."

Jeff - I would think that reading through the posts on this very site, you would realize that there are just as many idiotic liberals as there are conservatives, because idiocy has *nothing* to do with politics. Most people are stupid, period. The fact that you continue to reduce it to a red-state blue-state thing is ridiculous. You and I both know that you can not point to any study which proves that red-staters are more likely to go see stupid movies than blue-staters, because no such study exists, because it's untrue. It's a non-starter.

If they made a trailer for 'Stop Loss' that looked interesting, maybe people would want to go. I'm a blue stater, and *nobody* in the theater I saw it with was interested at all. It looks like a piece of shit, so nobody wants to see it.

comment #7

joncro says ...

http://www.allocine.fr/boxoffice/boxofficedetail_gen_tboxoff=5001.html

Box-office France, no 1- Je suis une légende; Warner Bros. France

comment #8

tophertilson says ...

Don't just blame it on the red states. I saw THERE WILL BE BLOOD again Friday here in bluer-than-blue New York City. They showed the preview for STOP LOSS and you could feel a palpable sense of dread and disconnect in the audience. The room which had been so buzzy and excited before this, just went dead. Luckily the KUNG-FU PANDA cellphone announcement came on next and brought everyone back to life. Seriously.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

Yeah, it's really the public's fault that after 10 artistically shitty anti-war movies, they don't jump at the chance to see #11.

comment #10

swordandpen says ...

The problem with this Iraq movie as well as others is that they seem to do little other than tell me how screwed up the war is. I already know the war is a disaster. Tell me something I don't know.

No Country and There Will Be Blood say more about the world we live in today. These Iraq movies will long be forgotten and seem already dated when they hit theaters.

comment #11

Alan Cerny says ...

The problem is that there's no goddamn perspective. I know what I think will happen, but I certainly don't know what will happen. Even APOCALYPSE NOW waited a few years before getting made.

comment #12

Alan Cerny says ...

The problem is that there's no goddamn perspective. I know what I think will happen, but I certainly don't know what will happen. Even APOCALYPSE NOW waited a few years before getting made. Also, THREE KINGS is looking more like a masterpiece with every year.

comment #13

p.Vice says ...

Swordandpen has it right -- The slew of Iraq-war movies have little to say other than, "Yo, dis shit is FUBAR, holmes. Now what we gonna do?" Most people going to these movies A) know that, B) can do absolutely nothing about it except continue to vote for a collection of idiots blundering their way through Washington, and C) thus cannot mentally deal when faced, helpless, by such a monumental catastrophe and realizing, "Hey, I voted for Bush. It's MY FAULT!!!" Much like some of y'all around here that don't want to fess up to the truth the Mack Daddy p. is slingin' like crack rock to some done busted pipeheads.

That said, I can't wait to see this only because of Pierce. It will actually have been 8 1/2 years since Boys Don't Cry when this is released, and that's far too long. Let's hope it doesn't get boondoggled by the Sophomore Slump.

comment #14

Awards Daily says ...

Exactly, Mgmax. Make better movies and people will see them no matter what. The only movie that was better than it deserved was Elah. But the point is very true that they feel dated by the time they hit theaters - we hear it in the news; we discuss it ad nauseum on blogs - the films seem to lumber in long after the fact and bring us nothing new. Wells can act like he's better than the people who don't get to see movies for free like he does if he wants to but it rings a bit false to me.

Americans are holding on to their pennies and are only seeing what they absolutely must see -- date night, kids movies, cineaste filmgasms. Why pay to see it when five seconds later it's out on DVD? Many feel like they can wait to see these movies. Seriously.

Get the bigger picture, Wells. It isn't always you being smarter than the blings or the red-staters or whatever. And p.s. you have an assistant??!!

comment #15

Hal says ...

The lack of interest for a Iraq war film starring Ryan Phillippe in no way, shape or form spells impending doom for cinematic literacy. If K.Pierce wants her movie out there she should get off her ass to rally her cast and promote the damn thing.

And bitch about all the iPhone users you want, Jeff. Because if they want to watch this movie, they will most likely be downloading it, like most people under the age of 60.

comment #16

Hickenlooper says ...

The problem with these Iraq films is that they come from the Hollywood bubble. They are the leftist-elist views of what the Hollywood/New York literati want Iraq to be and that's another Vietnam. Iraq is nothing close to that and the American public knows this. The facts just aren't there and now there is strong evidence that the surge is working, there is even less tocriticize. No wonder the Democrats are being quiet about Iraq now. Time perhaps Hollywood is to, at least until history comes to show us what is really going down. And that ultimately is victory. Sorry, I know that's politically incorrect to say, but it seems, at least for the time being that history is taking us in that direction, much to the dismay of Bush's critics.

comment #17

Lee says ...

Wait, Wells has an assistant?

comment #18

Awards Daily says ...

Wells has an assistant!

Hickenlooper, seriously? Do you really think people believe the surge is working and that it isn't a complete and utter disaster? It doesn't look very promising. I think we're all hoping there will be a way to end it. You're right that it's politically incorrect to say - and I admire you for saying it simply because it takes balls to admit what you believe and to defy the mob. I just don't talk to man people who really think the war is "working." And it isn't like Vietnam because that was an ideological war where this is a war for resources (they know it, we know it) - Big difference. On the other hand, America feels it the same, if not slightly worse, way.

comment #19

Sean says ...

"They are the leftist-elist views of what the Hollywood/New York literati want Iraq to be and that's another Vietnam."

That's as stupid as what Wells said. The movies are failing in New York and California just as much as they're failing in Iowa or Kansas, so obviously your opinion (much like your facts concerning Iraq) is wrong.

comment #20

Devin Conroy says ...

Hickenlooper,

Are you being facetious?

If not, where are you gathering this information? The middle east is a shambles, right now. Did you hear all of this in a George W. speech or something?

comment #21

Bocephus says ...

Sorry George, these movies aren't bombing due to lack of perspective. As others have said, we know about the war. We read about it and discuss it with our families, friends, and on blogs. These movies take months to get made, by the time the film is released we have already discussed the issues ad nauseum. We don't want to spend 10 bucks for preaching to the choir. You are only half-correct that we don't care what Hollywood thinks of the war; we also already know what they think of the war. Most liberals agree already and most conservatives wouldn't spend money to be preached at by effete entertainment types.

I can only assume that an up-with-war, support the troops, flag waving conservative film would also bomb. Money is tight for most people right now, and even right wingers wouldn't pay to see dreck just because they agreed with its principles.

Quality has a lot to do with it too. These movies haven't been very good, at least not compared to some of the other fantastic non-war films that have been released this year.

That said, I'm actually excited about Stop Loss. I've been waiting for a Pierce follow-up for a long time. I could give half a crap about what hacks like Paul Haggis have to say about these issues, but Boys Don't Cry showed that Pierce has a great feel for realism and humanity, and that's what interests me. And right or left, I think we can both agree that the troops are being made to spend way too much time on their tours. Noone can possibly argue that forcing our boys to do double duty away from their friends and families at home counts as "supporting the troops."

comment #22

Sean says ...

"I can only assume that an up-with-war, support the troops, flag waving conservative film would also bomb."

I don't know, people seem excited by that Iron Man trailer about a guy who's a super rich gun runner who becomes an uber-militant super-hero who kills a bunch of brown people.

Or, anyway, that's what the trailer paints it as...

comment #23

MDOC says ...

Yawn...

comment #24

Mgmax says ...

Yeah, the surge is working, you dead-enders are even more behind the times than Hollywood. Read something besides HE and the Daily Kos, wouldja? There's still plenty of anti-Iraq spin to be dozed, but you gotta stay current at least.

Oh, and this is beautifully devastating, Hal:

The lack of interest for a Iraq war film starring Ryan Phillippe in no way, shape or form spells impending doom for cinematic literacy.

One pow! and Jeff's whole post lies in ruins...

comment #25

Sean says ...

It's always funny to me the way that, the more partisan a person is, the more they assume that anybody who disagrees with them does so because they're only listening to the other side's propoganda.

It cuts both ways; if you bring up facts in an argument with a liberal, they'll say that you got them from Fox News. And if you bring up facts against a conservative, they'll say you got them from Daily Kos.

Never fails to happen, and it never fails to amuse. "Working" is a relative term; in this case, "Failing less badly than previously" would probably be a more accurate way to describe it. You can raise your grade from 15 to 30 and still be nowhere near passing.

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

On the other hand, if you're in a country that was operating at about a 3 for the last several decades, in a part of the world that rates about a 12 overall (and that only because of the UAE and Israel), 30 looks pretty damn good, doesn't it?

In any case, surge not working is soooo last month. Try to be current. Wherever you're getting it from.

comment #27

Sean says ...

Hey, in baseball, if you hit .300, you're in the hall of fame. But in war, if you're at .300, it's not so good.

And, to be fair to *both* sides, I think it's basically impossible to say the surge is "(not) working" while it's still going on. It's the old "Do or do not, there is no try" thing; right now, the surge is still in the "try" phase, because it's not done. Yeah, it seems better than last month, but until the surge is finished and has worked (or failed), I don't think you can reasonably say it's doing either one. It seems like the only people who try are extremists who feel personally invested in the politics of the situation (lefties who hate Bush are going to believe the surge is failing no matter what, and righties who desperately need to believe it's working aren't going to listen to any evidence that it might not be).

comment #28

Sean says ...

to put it another, hopefully clearer way:

The South got as far north as Pennsylvania during the Civil War; I'm sure that, over the months, while that trend was going on, word was that the Southern surge was "working". And this was correct during those months. But, obviously, the Southern surge ultimately failed.

So "working"... even allowing for any truth in it (I find myself skeptical of any news out of Iraq by the time it gets over here, because it all seems politicized), I'm not sure how much it really means while the fight is still going on.

comment #29

SpinDozer says ...

"surge not working is soooo last month. Try to be current."

Do Tell. What is the latest? And do try to provide something official and from non-partisan wish-fulfillmet fantasy island.

The latest such assessment from September...the official scorecard from the GAO...

(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.

(iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

(iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

(v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

(vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

(vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

(viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. ****Achieved****

(ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

(x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

(xi) Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law.

(xii) Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said `the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation'.

(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

(xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad. ****Achieved****

(xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

(xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected. ****Achieved****

(xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

(xviii) Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

I should say the latest un-doctored assessment, partial credit was given on #4, #9, #12, & #17 after WH pressure applied. Now that the withdrawals have begun, how many additional sucesses can be attributed? Violence is down, but we provided arms to sectarian militias to ethnically cleanse their turf. Is that the kind of thing that you expect to last? You think there is no chance that these newly armed militias will ever turn on us?

comment #30

Mgmax says ...

Yes, yes, and many other people think the GAO assessment is fundamentally wrongheaded because it's all about central bureaucracy and policy-enactment markers as opposed to what's actually happening in the provinces. (What a surprise, to a bureaucrat, every problem looks like a memo.)

Also, that was September. It is January in Iraq already.

Also, this is a movie site, try not to overdo it, that way maDZness lies.

comment #31

christian says ...

All that matters is that if we can get the killing down to an acceptable level, we've WON...something. Now, nobody said we wouldn't get our hair mussed, or that Bush knew the CIA was illegally torturing people, what counts is PERCEPTION.

Mgmax, the chattering nabobs of nonsense as represented by vampire Bill Kristol -- and quick, one of your righties call the NY Times a left-wing organ -- have been saying for 4 years that Iraq don't matter to voters. But it do. A lot.

comment #32

Mgmax says ...

Yeah, we sure wouldn't want to reduce killing in Iraq. That bastard Bush!

comment #33

SpinDozer says ...

'Also, that was September. It is January in Iraq already.

Also, this is a movie site, try not to overdo it, that way maDZness lies.'

You are the one who claimed that the success of the surge came within the last month. I provided you with a list of benchmarks for measuring the success you claim, which ones have been completed and would substantiate your claim?

The last believable assessment came in September (which I noted), you claim that something as materially changed. What is it? Since this is a movie site, we're limited to glib and indefensible chitty chat? Kudos on your success.

comment #34

Hickenlooper says ...

Gentlemen, I was initially against the Iraq war. Our resources would have easily been better spent in Afghanistan. But alas, we are in Iraq and we have to deal with what the facts are. And the facts have changed dramatically in the last four to five months. Violence is down by almost half and American casualties are at almost ten percent of what they were six months ago. Hollywood and the New York Times has been eager to see Baghdad as another Saigon from the very beginning. The Vietnam mentality that reeks among New York and Los Angeles literati (all educated and weened on the Vietnam era) were hoping we would fail there but we haven't and now it looks as though we won't. Sure, there are those still holding out and hoping that their demonizing portraits of George W. Bush and their demoralizing and fashionable views of U.S. foreign policy can hold water, but the tide of history is slowly turning in favor of the President. It now seems quite possible that the United States will succeed in Iraq in the long run. Why, because the Iraqis want us to. The Iraqis don't want to live under a dictatorship, they don't want to live under al Qaeda, and they certainly don't want to live under the shadow of Iran. And it is condescending to think that Arabs don't deserve freedom like the rest of us in the West do. Yes, we will be in Iraq for years to come. Decades most certainly. But that will NOT be a sign of failure. Just because the U.S. military has remained in Germany for the last sixty years, does not mean that we lost to the Nazis. Quite the contrary we took a menacing fascist country and made it into a powerhouse European democracy. Consequently, how many of you can stomach the idea that maybe the most unpopular U.S. President of all time was correct in his analysis that invading and stablizing Iraq would be a step in creating stability, peace and ultimately prosperity to Iraqis and eventually others in the middle east. Or is that just too hard and too politically incorrect to digest. Time will tell. The Democrats certainly don't want to talk about it anymore -- now that we seem to be succeeding. How convenient.

comment #35

jeffmcm says ...

Hickenlooper, please stick to the actual facts of the matter and don't try to extrapolate. Yes, it's nice that things in Itaq are less horrible than they previously were, but none of that will change that the invasion of that country was our nation's greatest foreign policy blunder in a century. It only looks good when coupled with incredibly low expectations for success.

The 'Germany'/'Korea' argument is full of holes as well. We weren't fighting insurgents in Germany in the early 1950s, we remained there as a bulwark against a Soviet invasion, ditto Korea. Get your history straight.

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

PS: This movie looks dumb. I remember having big problems with Boys Don't Cry and how it felt massively condescending to people in flyover country and here we go again.

comment #37

Mgmax says ...

Yes, Kimberley Peirce, maker of two movies reinforcing coastal preconceptions in a row...

comment #38

SpinDozer says ...

JeffMc:

As a resident of the area so described, I resent the 'flyover' epitaph, please leave it to the right winger's exclusive use so that they may nurse their inferiority complex to fuel their hatred of new-fangled ideas like evolution and global warming.

Spin

comment #39

christian says ...

" Sure, there are those still holding out and hoping that their demonizing portraits of George W. Bush and their demoralizing and fashionable views of U.S. foreign policy can hold water, but the tide of history is slowly turning in favor of the President."

George, love the WGA spots. Bravo. But re: Bush..huh? We invaded a country for WMD's that were not there; the administration lied to patriots like you, hoping your optimism in the face of tragic stupidity would will out. Along with that, thanks to his crony lawyers, Bush has the power to detain anybody he declares an enemy combatant, then lock up, torture, or possibly kill them without trial. The rogue CIA illegally destroyed tapes showing very bad things. This buck stops with Bush. At least according to conservative principles it should.

Bush's Secretary of Defense, AG, and VP's Chief of Staff have been convicted or disgraced out of their jobs. His ridiculous Supreme Court pick was killed by his own party. He has a 30 percent approval rating. He bows to the ring of hate-monger Rush Limbaugh. And thanks to Bush, the GOP got trounced last year. And it wasn't because they "weren't conservative enough."

The modern GOP policies, with all due respect, suck for the nation and world. They'll lose again (to a rather pathetic Dem party) exactly because Bush and others demonized themselves by sheer will of personal corruption and incessant mistakes.

Our economy is not bubbling. The Euro owns us. Christian fundamentalism is being filtered through our military. People watch reality TV. The WGA is on strike. Pakistan on fire. They even have nuclear weapons with our OK. And Bin Laden is probably tucked away in there too. We can debate who and how to make things better, but Bush and this Iraq war has been objectively a disaster. Less daily death is beautiful but the tolls have been highest for 2007. Less death will require leaving.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

If history is vindicating GWB, the GOP should be whistling to the White House.

comment #40

Mgmax says ...

We weren't fighting insurgents in Germany in the early 1950s

Total war, there's no better way to reach lasting peace.

comment #41

moviemaniac2002 says ...

I can well understand the failure of that herd of anti-Iraq movies. None of us have to fatten up Tom Cruise and Robert Redford's bank accounts to listen to them tell us that the war sucks and Bush is remarkably both a liar and a moron at the same time.

But I'm very curious to see if "Stop Loss" will suffer the same fate, because I know the issue it deals with will hit a raw nerve with families of those in the military...mainly that Bush uses his armed forces as permanently placed cannon fodder, shuffling them back and forth from Irag to Afghanistan and then back again, over and over.

My shlep-around-the-country job took me for awhile to Junction City, Kansas, adjacent to Fort Riley (home of 'The Big Red One') And I had the opportunity to meet and talk with young men and women soldiers....I was saddened and astounded to hear how many times they've been bounced from one war zone to another (As far as I'm concerned, any one of these kids is worth more than a million Dick Cheneys and Dubyas)

I haven't seen the movie and have no idea how it handles the subject matter, but this is one
Iraq movie who fortunes I'd follow closely.
As others have succinctly pointed out...the trailer is no differently put together and edited than the last ten trailers that anybody has seen....trailers have become so formulaic and
boilerplate, they vanish from everyone's memory five seconds after we've seen them...(white lettered slogan on black background...followed by actor sound-bite, followed by another black background slogan, followed by another sound bite,yada, yada...Does anyone at any studio have any clue how lousy their trailers are and how quickly they vanish from moviegoer's memories?

comment #42

MPNeeb says ...

Iraq is not a victory. If we were about to reduce levels of troops to 30K by Dec 2008, I might agree. But the best word to describe Iraq now would be, "stalemate."
And considering we'll have to spend $100B (or more) a year to maintain stalemate... Victory ain't the word.
No comparisons to Germany or Japan can be made because the Germans and Japanese were not shooting at us in 1949. Five years after "Mission Accomplished," the Iraqis are. Of course if you're part of the "proud 20%" that still thinks the black hole of Iraq is a success, those are not bullets- they're signs of love.
That said, most of the Iraq movies coming now are of a "top down" opinion on Iraq and the GWOT. They're being made by people that are too entrenched in their positions to "feel" the effects Iraq had had on the rest of the country. What Brian de Palma has to say about Iraq has as much validity as what the CEO of Bear-Stearns has.
No the worthy and brilliant works on Iraq will come, and they'll come from people in high school and college that have seen friends and loved ones go and come back. And go again. And again.
They'll have experienced close hand what it is to see a family destroyed by a veteran returned and traumatized by endless IEDs. They'll have experienced awkward moments of silence when somebody they knew in High school walks by missing his legs. They'll have something to say.
And it will be worth listening to.

comment #43

Mgmax says ...

Gee, Christian, I never heard that perspective before! It changed everything I think about it!

Okay, sorry to be snarky, but you know, there are so many things in what you say that beg questions that you're not convincing anyone-- because you're not sharing any underlying preconceptions with them. WMDs that weren't there-- or maybe they were in Syria by the time we got there, anyway, the whole world thought they were; the administration lied-- oh lordy, a politician gave his side of things and skirted the other side, stop the presses; Bush has the power to detain anybody-- how brave of you to speak out in this land where Ashcroft's, I mean Gonzalez's, I mean Mukasey's gestapo can arrest anyone; and so on. You start at such an extreme point, you lose your intended audience from the first line.

Same thing with MPNeeb-- peddling the same lefty view of soldiers as dumbass victims, well, the people who actually know soldiers and have seen them go and come back will hardly be the ones to keep peddling that stereotype. They'll make the movies about GIs teaching Iraqi villages how to get along and manage their basic infrastructure. And then you'll attack them as liars for showing something besides My Lai horrors.

comment #44

SpinDozer says ...

'You start at such an extreme point, you lose your intended audience from the first line.'

Yeah, Christian, stop lecturing retards. They must cling to idiotic notions that Saddam hid his nasty weapons in another country and that the whole world thought he had WMD no matter how many times it is proven otherwise.

comment #45

christian says ...

The "whole world thought they were" -- minus the millions who didn't.

comment #46

Stephe96 says ...

Serious question: if the Iraq was is so unpopular with the American public, why aren't these anti-war movies huge hits? In addition to the opinions given above, try this one: maybe a majority of Americans is willing to wait and see how this thing turns out. Remember, the war initially received nearly unanimous support from Congress, the UN, etc. You can say "Yeah, but Bush lied," I suppose, but that argument really doesn't hold water. The entire WORLD believed Saddam had WMD. (Really, one of the best arguments I ever heard for invading Iraq came in 2000 or so....from John Kerry!) Saddam was certainly acting as if he had WMD. Bush set the deadline, said what he would do, Congress authorized it....and here we are. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm neither for nor against this war. If the decision was made tomorrow to withdraw all troops, I'd say, 'OK, maybe that's a good idea.' Of course, I would've said that on the morning of the D-Day invasion, as well. 'Is defeating Hitler REALLY worth all this carnage?' Who knows? But the surge does appear to be working...things DO appear to be settling down over there...and you can't argue with the fact that we haven't been hit by terrorists in nearly 7 years. Maybe plenty of Americans are like me...willing to see if this might not be a good idea in the long run. Maybe it isn't...maybe it will turn out to be the worst US foreign police disaster in history. I just don't think a majority of Americans are really eager to turn to Hollywood to make the decision for them...especially at this early stage in the game. Anyway, just my two cents.

comment #47

SpinDozer says ...

'Serious question: if the Iraq was is so unpopular with the American public, why aren't these anti-war movies huge hits?'

An Enquiring Mind, how charming. Serious Answer: See Bocephus post from 11:33 AM.

comment #48

SpinDozer says ...

'maybe a majority of Americans is willing to wait and see how this thing turns out.'

Or, maybe not.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.4 (Form B)

12/14-17/07
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
33 63 4

"Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.4 (Form B)

12/14-17/07
IsStillPossible Is Not StillPossible Unsure
% % %
37 56 7

comment #49

Mgmax says ...

"Yeah, Christian, stop lecturing retards."

I will take that crudity as surrender from you, Spinny.

comment #50

SpinDozer says ...

enjoy your hard earned victory!

comment #51

diagf.com says ...

"Remember, the war initially received nearly unanimous support from Congress, the UN, etc."

ummm... what?

Congress and the U.S. media endorsed the war. That's it. The U.S. public basically endorsed it after the media bought and sold the official line(mushroom clouds) from the White House. The U.N. and the international community were decidedly against it. Britain and Spain, our allies, went against public opinion in their own countries and now those leaders are out on the street.

Debating the level of suckitude in Iraq is completely missing the point. There is no serious debate in the U.S. on the whether intervention in Iraq is a worthwhile venture. The problem is that we will simply not enter into the real world and admit we have imperial interest in the region. We have to delude ourselves into the fantasy that the U.S. wants democracy in the Middle East. A complete falsehood. It makes absolutely no sense for U.S. interests seeing as how they would tell us to GTFO and take control of their main industry(oil). If we were honest with ourselves we would just say we want a client state where the elite minority will allow the money to flow into Western pockets.

The Middle East has enormous strategic and material value(if you value oil, which Bush Co. most certainly does). and we are simply trying to secure our imperial interest. It makes perfect sense and there is nothing wrong with it if you believe that's where U.S. emphasis should be. A LOT of people disagree.

comment #52

BurmaShave says ...

When I heard the Dead Pool song at the beginning I was sure it was a fan edited mashup. What terrible music choices.

Kimberly Pierce took 10 years to make this?

comment #53

Stephe96 says ...

This is what Bill Clinton told the nation on 12/16/1998 to explain why he ordered US military strikes on Iraq:

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

He along with other Democrat members of Congress certainly believed Saddam was a threat to the world. And that was before 9/11. That's the situation Bush was facing: Iraq may or may not have WMD, but various intelligence agencies around the world reported it did, and Saddam was certainly acting like he had something to hide...we HAD to know, one way or the other. Can you imagine the outrage had the US been again hit by terrorists, and it turned out Iraq was somehow behind it?

comment #54

diagf.com says ...

Saying Clinton had the same policy is no argument for the war. He was just as wrong as Bush is. It just goes to illustrate how bought and paid for our politicians are. And yes, a vote for Hillary, Obama, Romney, Guiliani, Edwards, etc. will be a vote for more of the same. Don't kid yourselves, they will talk a big game with "withdrawal", but we are still gonna have bases and huge presence there, continuing to exacerbate the problem. Biden and McCain seem to be ok, as they are actual statesman and understand what that entails. Sadly, Kucinich and Paul are basically the only non insiders, and are actually talking sane foreign policy, but Kucinich has already been taken down, and Paul stands no chance with the crazies on the right.

I mean, are you serious? You were actually AFRAID of Iraq? Old remnants of the USSR had a million times the motivation to mess with the US and far greater access to nuclear weapons, but is that considered a grave threat?

The US supported sanctions and bombing of Iraq in the 90s only strengthened Saddam and weakened the population, making it harder for popular revolution to take hold. Hans Blix and the U.N. inspections were working. But WE didn't believe them b/c they were standard US hating liberal Euro commies right? Bush even said shortly before we went in, that even if Saddam and his cronies voluntarily left, we were still going in.

comment #55

diagf.com says ...

and, yes, the "Bodies hit the floor" in the trailer is ridiculously dumb.

comment #56

christian says ...

Stephe96, the fact is that George Bush pulled out Blix and the inspectors who were finding...no WMD. I keep hearing Bush and the other rightie big brains repeat this lie in the hopes it's true. Scott Ritter said there was no way Iraq had WMD's. And Kucinich didn't believe Bush. Nor did the French. Remember Freedom Fries?

Powell regretted his dog and pony show at the UN. And Bush lied about Saddam's aluminum tubes, not to mention the VP outed a covert agent to punish those not going with the party line. And the media pimped that war like Superfly.

I love this benign "Oh it was just a congressional action" nonsense. Bush could have engaged the world, instead he acted like the instinctual monkey he represents, using 9/11 to launch a stupid and ill-conceived imperialist action that was dictated by the CEO thugs of PNAC.

Here's a typical news story pre-war. Read it and weep:

Yesterday Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the two top United Nations weapons inspectors, began two days of vital consultations in Baghdad ahead of their next report to the Security Council on Friday.

They were greeted by new Iraqi concessions, including a go-ahead for U-2 spy plane flights and unimpeded interviews with four Iraqi scientists. After a day of what Mr Blix called "very substantial" talks, it was announced that Iraq had handed important documents to the inspectors.

But officials in both Washington and London were scathing about these last-minute gestures from the Iraqi regime. Both governments are convinced that Saddam Hussein has no intention of letting go of his supposed arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

The US's apparent rush to war could be deeply unsettling for Tony Blair, who needs to convince British public opinion that Iraq has been given every chance to co-operate with the inspectors, and that war, if it comes, has the clear backing of the UN Security Council.

In his weekly radio address yesterday, President Bush declared that Iraq's violations of UN resolutions "are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world and they continue to this hour". Saddam had been given a final chance. "He is throwing away that chance."

An identical message was delivered yesterday by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, to European diplomats and military specialists in Munich. He delivered a blistering attack on France and Germany for their "inexcusable" blocking of Nato moves to help Turkey in the event of military action against Iraq.

In an 11th-hour attempt to arrest the momentum towards war, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, yesterday warned Washington against attacking without a mandate from the world body. "War is always a human catastrophe," Mr Annan declared in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The Security Council was more divided than ever, as diplomatic maneuvering intensified over a possible second resolution that would give UN cover to an American-led attack to topple Saddam.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0209-01.htm

Anyway. Let's make 2008 better.
My last post of the year. Peace.

comment #57

diagf.com says ...

to clarify...

Obama and Edwards definitely have potential. We'll see. McCain and Paul are definitely the only Republicans that are even operating on planet Earth when it comes to foreign policy.

comment #58

Mgmax says ...

Why did I just know that you were going to turn out to be a Paul cultist?

comment #59

diagf.com says ...

Right, because I mention his name when discussing the presidential candidates and foreign policy? It's called being objective. Jesus.

comment #60

diagf.com says ...

Paul is a complete loon on almost everything EXCEPT foreign policy.

comment #61

Movie Watcher says ...

Great comments here. I was in the military; once you sign that contract, they can do what they want with you. Time to get out? No, back to Iraq. I wonder how many guys thought of doing what is layed out in the movie, and how hard is it to get a new identity? Also, that song, isn't it in the Rambo movie, too? I think that by October, you might see troops coming home, and you can bet all the networks, especially one in particular, will be all over the story.

comment #62

Mgmax says ...

Paul is a complete loon on almost everything EXCEPT foreign policy.

Right, he's just an isolationist tinged with anti-semitism on that. No wonder the left loves him. He's one of them.

comment #63

SpinDozer says ...

'he's just an isolationist tinged with anti-semitism on that. No wonder the left loves him. He's one of them.'

You've confused Ron Paul & The Left with a MGMax strawman again.

So the left is isolationist? Does the 'International' mean anything to you? How about 'Workers of the WORLD unite'?

The "anti-semitism" you speak of, is this the variety where the conspirators don't run all fp decisions by the IDF before implementing? Or maybe the conspiracy which says Israel and US interests are not identitical?

comment #64

diagf.com says ...

Well, we are, like, Christians and stuff. Israel has to be there so Jesus can come back and save us and kill them(non-believers, brown people, Commies), and bring an end to the world.

Sounds cool. Sign me up.

comment #65

Mgmax says ...

How about, Israel gets to be there because they're people and, unlike most of the other people in that region, they're not committed to exterminating one of their neighbors and, for good measure, conquering the whole world in the name of their god, despite the fact that they can't even run one of their own countries worth a damn?

comment #66

diagf.com says ...

What I said has nothing to do with the perspective of actual Israelis. Of course they have a to be there, just as anybody would. The U.S. and Israel, however, have unilaterally blocked the international consensus(including Iran) of a 2 state solution for 30 years.

The problem is only listening to the hardliners on either side.

comment #67

SpinDozer says ...

Just for the record, MgMax, please identify the country that wants to conquer "the whole world in the name of their god".

comment #68

diagf.com says ...

left out "right" in my above post "a right to be there"

comment #69

Mgmax says ...

Did I say it was a country? No, I did not.

comment #70

Mgmax says ...

Interesting, by the way, Spinny, that you deny so vociferously that the Left is isolationist-- yet your proof is 90 years old.

I can do better than that; I can remember in the 70s and 80s when my fellow liberals were concerned about human rights all over the world, and would have been shocked to hear so-called liberals speak so blithely of abandoning, say, Iraq to bloody civil war.

comment #71

christian says ...

Yawn. What a night. Look at this mess...
Oh, you guys are still here? Cool.

"No wonder the left loves him. He's one of them."

Except Ron Paul is registered and running as a Republican.

comment #72

Mgmax says ...

And Tom Cruise is married.

comment #73

christian says ...

Yes, that's true. He is married. And all those people applauding Paul at the Republican debates were planted left-wing progressives.

comment #74

Mgmax says ...

Yes, and the National Socialists were right-wingers.

comment #75

SpinDozer says ...

'Interesting, by the way, Spinny, that you deny so vociferously that the Left is isolationist-- yet your proof is 90 years old.'

My proof is 90 years old? I didn't provide any "proof", I merely pointed out that your construct on what the left 'is' is contradicted by elementary principals of the left. Your strawman is wholly a concoction of your impoverished understanding of the world.

comment #76

SpinDozer says ...

'Did I say it was a country? No, I did not.'

So you were defending a country, Israel, by attacking a religion?

comment #77

christian says ...

And I guess the Bush-hating Republican candidates haven't jumped on that whole "tide is turning" meme:

HNSTON, Iowa (Reuters) - Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on Tuesday the Bush administration mismanaged the Iraq war, distancing himself from his party's unpopular president two days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential contest.

comment #78

Mgmax says ...

So you were defending a country, Israel, by attacking a religion?

No, I was defending human beings by attacking an insane death cult.

comment #79

SpinDozer says ...

'No, I was defending human beings by attacking an insane death cult.'

Thanks for being a valuable asset in the progress of humanity.