The Green Zone - film

[Daniel]

I saw my wife slouching through most of it. I thought she wanted to leave. When it was over she said, "That was pretty good! Too slow at the start, though."

For me, I could have really used a lot less ultra-shaky camerawork. The director of this also did "Bourne Ultimatum" and this film makes that final fight scene seem lucid. Just nauseating and you can't focus on the action. And the night-time shots were the grainiest I've ever seen. Like it was a small budget and they had to use cheaper videocameras.

Damon's looking for WMDs from false leads while his men get hurt. But I haven't been keeping up with the proof of WMDs or their lack thereof.

What is "hooah" short for?

Daniel? Anybody?

Urban Dictionary: hooah

[Daniel]

Sets, extras, props(for the most part), wardrobe, dialogue. All was correct. I enjoyed it a lot.

The movie is set right as we enter Baghdad and the couple of weeks following until Pres. Bush declares an end to major hostilities.

Right wingers won't like it.

as I said.

[rentalguy1]

Saw it. Wasn't great, but wasn't bad. Wished I had not have spent the money on it. Should have waited for Netflix to have it. Wasn't overtly against the Bush administration.

BTW...there still hasn't been any WMD's found. What if it really went down the way the movie portrayed it; some mid-level washington weenie falsifying intel to make a name for himself. And before anyone goes to calling me some leftist weenie, I am a vet, I was there the first time, and I know that they had WMD's prior to 1990. I have no doubts that they had them after that date as well, but they most likely had been moved out of the country well before '03. We went there for BS reasons, under a BS president, and BS civilian leadership over the military. Many a good soldier has been laid to rest for absolutely no reason. Hooah?

EDIT: I was a huge supporter of the war up until the last few months. Thinking back on things, I just can't see any logic or reasoning for going there. They are really no better off sans Hussein. It was a effed up crap hole before we went there, and it is a effed up crap hole now.

Edited March 17, 2010 by rentalguy1

[Guest jackdm3]

I'd like to add to it, but you should know more than almost any of us.

And thanks for your time in.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not trying to look down on you, rentalguy, at all, and thanks for your service, but if there wasn't civilian control over the military, this would be a different country.

USSR or China come to mind. I voted for Bush twice and I would gladly repeat those votes, especially considering his competition at both times. None of us are happy anytime one of our soldiers die in combat. Playing 'what if' games doesn't do us any

good, especially by Hollywood. Is al queda still present? What is their goal? Are they trying to obtain nuclear weapons? I don't remember the time line on the yellow cake

uranium that was found, so I won't go there.

Every US President has made mistakes but Bush's competition would have led to a bigger mess here and there alike. Look what we have now.

[Capbyrd]

We went there for BS reasons, under a BS president, and BS civilian leadership over the military. Many a good soldier has been laid to rest for absolutely no reason. Hooah?

This movie is sparking some great political debate!

But to address the quote above. I have always believed that taking Sadaam out of power was a good thing. Regardless of the reasons why we went, overthrowing Sadaam was good.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

There are lines such as this all throughout the Declaration of Independence. People who are able always have a responsibility to help others when their "unalienable rights" are being challenged. As citizens of Earth, we should help each other.

That being said, we did alot of things wrong and I would like to see us help more people but I hope that you see and understand my point.

[rentalguy1]

I wasn't saying that civilian leadership over the military is a bad thing. I was saying Rumsfield sucked. He sucked the first time, too. A lighter, faster army, which was the brain-child of Rummy/Powell after the first Gulf War is partially to blame for us still being at war, in two theaters, 8 1/2 years later. You don't fight wars with less manpower and material. You fight wars with overwhelming power. You decimate the enemy, their economy, their industry, and their countryside. Then you help them build back up. We did none of that this time around.

I used to us that same argument about Hussein needed to be ousted, but seriously, can you tell me how it is better there now than it was in 2002? I mean, the same numbers of people are being killed there every year, just not by him. Under his rule, at least you knew if you stepped out of line his goons were gonna come get you in the middle of the night. Now, if you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're screwed (re.: dead).

We really fouled up there at every turn. I was too tied to party and military background to see it before, but I can see it clear as a bell now. Not saying we should have never went in. I'm just saying that we should have went in differently. Starting off with a actual purpose, instead of unvetted intel from foreign countries, and ending up with a overwhelming war, followed by complete military rule for a period of decades. The folks in that area are not like us. They have been told when, how, and how much to crap for all of their lives. You can't just thrust democracy on them and expect them to get it. That's the same as going on a vacation and leaving your 5 year old kid at home to take care of themselves.

Sorry to the OP. I never meant to go political in this thread. I will stop now.

[Daniel]

You are not bothering me a bit. I feel much the same way.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You're exactly right. Overwhelming force is always necessary to win a war. The part of the equation that makes anything difficult is the varying positions each and every person in the House and Senate have, also. I think if Bush had his way a lot of things would have been done differently, if he didn't have to bargain with those two bodies, also. But that is a weakness and a strength of divided government. I'd hate to see that diminished. That's why it is so important to elect the right people for the positions. I personally don't like the nation-building going on, but I guess it beats

religious rule if it is successful.

Your point of view is just as important as anyone else's. Glad to hear it.

[Capbyrd]

can you tell me how it is better there now than it was in 2002?

No. And thats why I said that we didn't do everything the way I would have liked. Things should have been handled differently but they werent.