Escape to the Movies: Act of Valor

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

TheBelgianGuy:

Steve the Pocket:

Evil Alpaca:
OT: Moviebob seemed to be upset in the quick facts at the end because the US military doesn't rent out its stuff unless people make them out to be the good guys. I'm curious, do you think ANYBODY would contribute to a film that makes them look bad?

I'm more curious why it's ever more cost-effective to borrow the real thing than to just order authentic-looking replicas. Surely the military has better things to do with their equipment than loan it out to a bunch of yahoos with cameras.

The US army lends out advisor, personnel and equipment if they are shown in a good light in a movie. Public relations for the military IS important - and honestly, it's not like 100% of the US army is fighting in the middle east all the time.
So a moviemaker gets lots of support for no cost - why would you order replicas?

Don't really care about US propaganda, but just sayin'.

Its kinda funny how you say you don't like for U.S. propaganda, and yet your avatar is Pip-boy.

Granted it is fake american propaganda, but still....very funny.

This felt like seriously WAY to apologetic...
Are Soldier heroes? Really, does this need an answer? Then go watch Yathzee on "People are shit"...
Soldier are doing their work as ordered from a government or high ranked officer thats it. If you think they are heroes blah blah, then all people doing their fracking work is heroes, and congrats now you removed the last pride in the word hero that existed. As punishment go find a new word to degrade to point of no more use or meaning...

And BTW most "modern" armies teach kill only as last resort, but be good at it if you have to.

For the movie seems interesting and I will probably watch it for the action. At least I wont laugh my but of for the enormously stupid "tactics" or weapon effects used in some movies...

DVS BSTrD:
Edit: Also, I don't doubt that real munitions were used during filming, but the truck explosion they keep repeating in the trailers still looks a little too flashy. Especially after seeing a demonstration of the actual hardware.

Or maybe I'm just seeing things.

First: no way they would use a real rocket in a movie instead of a controlled explosion.

Second: FPS Russia did not use a real rocket. Too bad, he lies to his viewers. But he was the same person that suggested the use of birdshot for home defense.

I'm probably gonna go see this movie, because I happen to like military stuff. That being said, I think that, at least judging by the trailers, one of the things a film like this will do well is to dispel the notion that there is a "field of honor" in modern combat. No. Soldiers do, can, and should try to make any fight they go into as unfair as possible.

Coreless:

bravetoaster:

Coreless:
Having served in the military (US Army) myself, I can tell you that the real job of the military is actually the complete opposite. The job of the military is actually to save lives, and to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic ...first and foremost.

Yes the military does teach you to kill and most of my combat training centered around becoming more efficient at it, but the real goal of the military is always defense first, and to kill only as a last resort.

That's all well and good as a theory (well, kind of. Killing humans is wrong no matter what the circumstance, but at least killing as a final resort in the defense of oneself/others is understandable, if not forgivable), but has that ever actually been practiced by the US military? If so, when?

I'm genuinely not trying to be antagonistic or anything here, I just don't see how or when the US military has actually served as a defensive force (at least not in my lifetime, probably not my parents' or grandparents', either).

I was merely trying to convey to you how people in the military feel about their job. Unless you have served in the military I wouldn't expect you to see that or to understand it in the same way. You obviously feel a certain way about the military and from what I gather from your response you have strong views regarding wars past and present. With that said, I think it would be best for me not to give my opinion on the matter because really its all going to boil down to how you personally feel about all those conflicts and the subject matter as a whole.

Fair enough. I cannot view the military in the same light as someone who's been a part of it, but--at least within certain limits--I think I can understand (at least part of?) your viewpoint; I'd think that you (and most members of... probably any military) genuinely don't want to hurt or kill other people, but are willing (if needed/ordered) to fight (and, if necessary, kill) to protect your friends and colleagues in the military against [something/someone regarded as a threat to you/your colleagues/your nation]. I hope that's at least a reasonable approximation of your perspective (if not, I welcome any corrections). If it's just personal perspective we're talking, then, at least in practical terms, I'd be happy to know that most members of the military share a perspective similar to yours--it's at least indicative of you/them wanting to do something good and wanting to protect others.

My apologies if I came/come off as particularly aggressive or closed-minded about any of this--if you're up for or interested in discussion, I'd love to hear (and understand, even if I ultimately cannot agree with) your opinions. You're correct that I have strong (probably extreme) views about war and the military, but that's all rooted in... big picture idealism (for lack of a better phrase)--I want humans, as a species, to prosper and grow and expand and just be amazing. And I desperately hope we will do just that (even if I'm long dead before we take any major steps forward or begin to focus on the long term), but using humans as tools to kill other humans and spending time and money and effort on hurting other humans is just... heartbreaking and frustrating. Hopefully that at least gives you some idea of where I'm coming from on all of this stuff (and if you see the military/war as being compatible with or necessary for moving forward as a species--or just wholly disagree with me--I'd be excited to hear).

Regardless of whether or not you feel like discussing this further, best to you and yours.

Dastardly:
As the saying goes, "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." People can cry about the horrors of war, and how awful all of it is, but it's easy for them to forget that the reason they're free to do so is because we've got men ready to bear that burden for us.

Elaborate, please, or provide a few examples? While the quote may be applicable in some places and/or circumstances, I fail to see the actual relevance to modern Americans (i.e., who/what would keep me from being able to sleep safe and sound at night [aside from local criminals, maybe] and who, outside of Washington DC, threatens or takes away American freedom?).

Sounds like it turned out more or less precisely as I thought it would (The action scenes would be ludicrously awesome while the dialogue was a tad stilted [you know, since they're trained soldiers not trained actors]). Will probably give it a look.
Really, glad to see it came off less propaganda-y then I predicted, but Bob you really didn't need to apologise that much, saying "I fully respect the actual military" (Or something to that effect) once probably would've been enough.

Glad to see you're reviewing another sort of movie, this time in the military action genre, Bob. Not that I'm particularly interested in that kind of film but it's good to see a broad range of genres represented on this show.

This being said, I kinda wish you had made/been able to make (I understand you might not have gotten an advance screening of it) some comment about Wanderlust. Just saw it, and I think my money and time might have been better spent staying at home. Paul Rudd's charm, while still considerable, is just not enough to carry this movie against Jennifer Aniston's 'be the most unbearably annoying person possible' routine. The hippies are all bigger liars and jerks than urbanites thing is tired, and Ken Marino isn't sympathetic enough for his biggest-dickweed-in-the-world schtick to actually be funny. And don't worry: for anybody who might have thought they had to see this movie to see her rack, Jennifer Aniston absolutely insisted that her topless scene be removed and it is nowhere to be found in the theatrical release. I hope this movie tanks.

I was bracing for disaster before I opened this, but I was relatively surprised by this.

I think I'll check it out. I've heard good things about it, and it seems to be more along the lines of Black Hawk Down in how it isn't really spouting propaganda and Patriotism. I'm curious.

Okay, anyone watched the movie?

I liked Tears of The Sun. Say what you want - I admit it has a lot of flaws - but I just love every second of it. I once watched it 7 times in a week.

Would I liked Act of Valor? I don't want to feel disappointed.

Doitpow:
I'm not a fan of the work of 90% of the military and the more "realistic" movies about real wars get, the more I see it as attempts to further justify often illegal military action.

Okay, since I was talking about Tears of The Sun, let's talk about illegal military action.

It is needed.

A few days, probably almost a week ago, people were rescued from Somalia by special forces. Obviously, there was no legal way to just send a "legal" operation to rescue them.

EDIT: It was a month ago.

Remember that special forces do not wear patches or any insignia on them. Most special forces in the western world use AR15 based weapons such as the M4 or the M16 for deniability reasons.

Therefore, if captured the enemy can just consider that they are not wearing a recognizable uniform and ignore the Geneva conventions. They are risking their necks for human lives.

Let's talk about the movie Tears of The Sun.

Basically, Nigeria is at war and they have to rescue a doctor that is a US citizen and has no way to leave the country. Situations like these call for illegal operations.

The Allies winning WWII required illegal military operations (back when the SAS and OSS were taking their first steps).

Doitpow:
I'm not a fan of the work of 90% of the military

Yeah, that kinda pissed me off. Sure, I would be the first in line to criticize a lot of things we have seen in the last decade.

But let me tell you. My father was a on board mechanic in the Air Force, and flew in both fixed wing and rotor aircraft.

He participated in Search & Rescue missions, Medivacs/Casevacs, medical air drops, all that jazz.

He was there to save fishermen after their ship had sunken. To fly sick people in Africa to the nearest hospital. Damn, even dolphins trapped in lakes formed by the dry season, that had to be airlifted by helicopter.

Say what you want, but the Air Force does not consist on 10% of the military, but you probably wouldn't know about that until you or someone you know needs rescue.

bravetoaster:
Elaborate, please, or provide a few examples? While the quote may be applicable in some places and/or circumstances, I fail to see the actual relevance to modern Americans (i.e., who/what would keep me from being able to sleep safe and sound at night [aside from local criminals, maybe] and who, outside of Washington DC, threatens or takes away American freedom?).

Leaving the blind American patriotism aside, I can surely tell you you'll be thankful for the military if your city was struck by a natural disaster like Katrina.

Zhukov:
I think it says a lot that half that video consisted of apologetic disclaimers.

Especially since 80% of that was "I love you guys, you're awesome."

Pretty sure that is what we've become in general, though. A nation scared of even the slightest perception that saying bad things about something related to the military might be knocking the military itself.

It's a shame that we cannot have an adult conversation about the military, but when a critique of a movie involving them requires five minutes of fellatio and provides only about two minutes of substance, something's really wrong.

Really didn't like all the apologising and justification of your opinion of the film, which came across as not all that bad, and worth a look if you are interested in it's premise. The review got overladen with repetitive reassurances of your deep respect for their profession, it didn't need it, and nor would anyone with any modicum of rationality have thought a mediocre critique of this film reflected as your personal disparaging of the military.

I respect they do a dangerous and difficult job, but they aren't inherently valiant heroes, they're soldiers. Soldiering has a high heroism potential, but doesn't implicitly receive it. They fight for their government, whomever that is, who decide who the bad guys are, which I feel confident are often less evil than inconvenient. It must be unrelentingly demanding to have to perform their jobs and not dispute the ethics of the decisions of politicians, but that doesn't make them ideals or above any suggestion that anything to do with their careers is less than excellent. Those who perform acts of heroism beyond the call of duty are among the rare few, who then all too often face disciplinary action for their actions. Heroism in the line of duty depends on the time, the place, and what they have been asked to do.

My point being, the profession isn't beyond criticism, in the same way police, paramedics, farmers, pilots, geologists etc... have professions that are of significant importance, for various reasons, and yet still succumb criticism.

Nor should someone's capacity to kill you be a factor that alters your respect for them. You and they should both try to be reasonable people, who would be, in normal circumstances, unlikely want or need to fight. Their discipline however, undoubtedly, since it's a admirable character trait, which is among many you will likely acquire training to be a navy SEAL. Being able to kill someone efficiently is a unfortunate necessity of the job. Maybe this is just me cradling some small hope that humanity is making an effort to rise above our foundations, and that being able to kill the best, isn't something we revere.

My 3.3 pence. (Which I agree was completely necessary)

ElPatron:

Leaving the blind American patriotism aside, I can surely tell you you'll be thankful for the military if your city was struck by a natural disaster like Katrina.

When my city flooded, it wasn't the National guard who rushed to help us.

Cowabungaa:

Kargathia:

Cowabungaa:
I wonder what a non-American would think about the propaganda-level of this film.

Not sure about the film, but there's too much of it in the review already.

There is such a thing as respecting people who are good at their job, but this amount of ass-kissing and hero worship was obscene.

I'm inclined to agree. Half the review was spent apologizing for having a friggin' opinion, which is honestly extremely non-MovieBob-like. Hence why I'd like to have a non-American take on this thing.

Well I'm not American, but I do have respect for military people. The country of origin is not the point unless you've been on an opposing side with America, otherwise its all about what you think of soldiers as people. I'm sure many people don't like it precisely because they have no respect for the marines and just see all soldiers as willful murderers.

bravetoaster:

Dastardly:
As the saying goes, "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." People can cry about the horrors of war, and how awful all of it is, but it's easy for them to forget that the reason they're free to do so is because we've got men ready to bear that burden for us.

Elaborate, please, or provide a few examples? While the quote may be applicable in some places and/or circumstances, I fail to see the actual relevance to modern Americans (i.e., who/what would keep me from being able to sleep safe and sound at night [aside from local criminals, maybe] and who, outside of Washington DC, threatens or takes away American freedom?).

I'm not here to play the obvious little game you're setting up here, sorry.

Zhukov:
I think it says a lot that half that video consisted of apologetic disclaimers.

Shame they went and included the wankier aspects. One would think this movie would have presented a good opportunity to avoid that stuff.

Yep, americans seem to regard the sanctity of their military forces as a serious buisness.

Ill probably see it when it comes to DVD, liked the realistic military scenes Bob showed.

Cowabungaa:
I wonder what a non-American would think about the propaganda-level of this film.

Direct to rental material like The Hurt Locker. For the ordinary guy is just another of "those movies". Much more interesting is the opnion of non- north American about the Ghost Rider.

Cowabungaa:
I wonder what a non-American would think about the propaganda-level of this film.

Honestly I'm not a native born American but I was raised here and I have a disgust for when the military tries to infiltrate popular culture as to get recruitment, like the American Army games. To me mourning soldiers deaths as worse than normal people's death sickens me, to me the military is just like taking drugs, you know there was a risk some drugs/branches are more dangerous than others and you know very well your health can be heavily damaged if not get killed if you decide to participate not to mention that you could potentially hurt many other people. However you do it for the benefits, for the military it's social, cultural and financial for drugs it tends to be physical pleasure, the only difference is that one is supported by the government and the other isn't. I feel an essential sense of irony then when American soldiers defend Opium fields in Afghanistan as to keep people supporting them.

Wow, the US really is not tired of using the old and dumb "The Russians did it" plot.

It is going to go to a quarter century since the cold war was over. Get over it... Don't you pretend your enemy is the entirety of the middle east now? Or was it China?

It reminds me of that scene at Black Hawk Down, when an US soldier is praying a female civilian doesn't pick up the AK, just to say "See? That's what collateral damage is all the time! US soldiers don't indiscriminately shoot civilians, they just shoot the ones dumb enough to go and grab a gun in the middle of a firefight. Aren't they dumb?"

Ugh.

Cowabungaa:
I wonder what a non-American would think about the propaganda-level of this film.

well coming from a country that was fucked by its own armed forces (helped by america), i usually like this kind of movies, if they dont try to portrait soldiers as heroes (when they are just men doing their job, they arent defending you, or your way of life, they are defending your goverment way of life, which may or may not include you), if they are neutral and the bad guys arent bad just for the sake of not been american, i love them

I find the mere concept of a professional military revolting.

Zhukov:
I think it says a lot that half that video consisted of apologetic disclaimers.

Shame they went and included the wankier aspects. One would think this movie would have presented a good opportunity to avoid that stuff.

Yes, a lot of apologetics.

Bob can never escape that he is an American, and with that often comes a positive view of American soldiers. He never acknowledges they, the SEALs are jobbers, highly trained killers. He can't sit back either and appreciate the Americans through their military power, are not the good guys, or at least, can't claim to be the good guys all the time. The American mind rarely escapes and soberly examines the "American heroes" of the American military. He knows the populace get fed propaganda, but doesn't think how the propaganda affects his perceptions.

Interesting film, Yet you completely skip the fact that americans are the bad guys... Seriously, Americans are bad guys, and this film just shows the soldiers as good guys, even though their job is to kill people.... Which is sick. Why should we respect these people when their job is to go out and murder people. I'm not pro taliban, I'm not pro anything, but in this situation, at this point in the war, the Taliban are primarily made up of people whose homes, families, and culture has been destroyed by americans, the foriegn aggressor on their land.

We shouldn't respect soldiers, why? because they're taking part in a war that is so obviously wrong, Killing hundreds of thousands of people to avenge a few thousand. Spending $97 million dollars in the wars in afganistan and iraq for every one american killed in 9/11. Think of the good that could have been done with that money.

This film, while not overly political, is still glorifying murderers, people who take others lives for money. And that is something that i cannot condone.

I might wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray home release. This doesn't seem like the kind of movie I would want to see in the cinema. I can't believe they actually used LIVE ammo on set!

I say old chap:

Zhukov:
I think it says a lot that half that video consisted of apologetic disclaimers.

Shame they went and included the wankier aspects. One would think this movie would have presented a good opportunity to avoid that stuff.

Yes, a lot of apologetics.

Bob can never escape that he is an American, and with that often comes a positive view of American soldiers. He never acknowledges they, the SEALs are jobbers, highly trained killers. He can't sit back either and appreciate the Americans through their military power, are not the good guys, or at least, can't claim to be the good guys all the time. The American mind rarely escapes and soberly examines the "American heroes" of the American military. He knows the populace get fed propaganda, but doesn't think how the propaganda affects his perceptions.

Maybe he just thinks American soldiers are brave people under questionable orders and they aren't the ones we should be blaming for the world's problems and the US's public image.

I'm not really into movie length 'join the military' commercials and other assorted propaganda nonsense. But whatever, wouldn't be the first stupid movie concept around.

I'm also probably not the only one to notice this, but half the review feels like it's apologizing just for reviewing the damn thing. I mean come on... who the hell even thought this was going to be any good in the first place? Some of the damn commands themselves probably expected this to suck.

Dastardly:

MovieBob:
Act of Valor

MovieBob aims his attention at the epic Navy recruiting film Act of Valor.

Watch Video

Good, fair treatment of the material. I see this movie as an experiment. It's not meant to propagandize (ie, sway the opinions of the masses) as much as it's meant to appeal to already-fans of this kind of thing, and see if it takes.

And on another hand, I really have no problem with the military working to ensure a mostly-positive spin in Hollywood appearances. What they do is usually not very action-filled, and when it is, it's not "fun" or "pretty." It's flat-out ugly. They're going to get plenty of negative spin because what they do involves killing people. (In addition to the statisticallyextremely uncommon scandalous stuff we hear so much about lately.)

An army has to do awful things, and the public needs men able and willing to do those things. Often, we only hear/talk/care about what they do when it goes wrong. Really think about this:

1. We have a military so that we don't all have to deal with all of the awful things they have to do.
2. Because we don't have to deal with those awful things, we forget about them... or at least lose perspective on them.
3. We make unreasonable demands about how they do/don't do those awful things we originally tasked them to do.
4. They don't get it done, so it either doesn't get done or it falls back to us.
5. We decide to have a military, so that we don't have to deal... and so on.

Running PR for an organization like the military must be an absolute nightmare, because even on the best days, you're an organization whose job it is to kill lots of people(or at least stay prepared to do so). Seems to be that job would be impossible without a little "hero porn" and a bit of preemptive damage control.

Speaking as a european who has served in the Norwegian military.

The military is usually not the ones to blame for civilan casaulties at all, the politicians that put them in the situation are. The horrors of war and modern armed conflicts should be known to everyone so that politicians are never allowed to use military force lightly. In a working democracy, the voters are to blame. If I should mention a current hot potato, The Iraq war, very well handeled, military wise, but the reasons for starting it were laughable.

TLDR:
I respect the US military, but not always the ones that control it.

Second review for this movie I've heard today, and both have said almost the samething.
And so far they've peeked my interest if only for a second. That's an acomplishment seeing how I despise war and those who monger it--but not those fighting in it, veterans deserve respect. That's why Bob was so hesitant, He didn't want anyone saying he's unpatriotic or was hating on veterans.

MovieBob:
snip

Strange, I always heard it was because of the usage of Area 51, not the UFOs specifically.

Waaghpowa:

CronoT:
I respect the hell out of the military, too, Bob. I also know I respect them best by admitting I don't belong anywhere near them. Awesome review.

The respect should go both ways. We should respect the people in the military for the risks they are taking to protect our nation while they should respect other peoples decision to not join the military whether it be because we don't belong, don't believe in violence, not wanting to fight what they don't believe in etc. Every now and then I get a military guy at work who is disrespectful in that regard.

Completely agree with this. I've been disrespected a few times by military guys who think they're something huge now they've passed basic training and I should somehow bow down to them. I've had such disgusting comments as "I'm more important that all these, I shoot rag 'eds" this was in a shop where he tried jumping the que and noone was having it, shows the mentality of some of these guys...

EDIT; changed to prevent me getting fucked over...

Dastardly:
As the saying goes, "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." People can cry about the horrors of war, and how awful all of it is, but it's easy for them to forget that the reason they're free to do so is because we've got men ready to bear that burden for us.

The people you NEVER hear about do far more than any soldier to let "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night". Intelligence and scientific services are never heard about and conducted in complete secrecy with no one doing any of these jobs even admitting to what they do. Without either of these no army, navy or airforce would be effective.

Madcat75:
Why do people keep saying that just because the SEALS and Delta are American they are the "best in the world", they are not even close, the best in the world are the British SAS and SBS and the Israeli Sayeret.

It's a national pride thing, every nation wants to say their version of special forces is the best.

When you break down the equipment, training, tactics, and everything else that makes a group elite all the groups you mentioned are so close it's really hard to say any of them would be just the tiniest bit better than the others.

To be honest if I was being held by pirates, terrorist or any other assorted bad guys I'd be happy to see the SEALs, Delta, SAS, SBS, or the Sayeret show up to save my butt.

Am I the only one who can't get this out my head now?

Dastardly:

MovieBob:
Act of Valor

MovieBob aims his attention at the epic Navy recruiting film Act of Valor.

Watch Video

Good, fair treatment of the material. I see this movie as an experiment. It's not meant to propagandize (ie, sway the opinions of the masses) as much as it's meant to appeal to already-fans of this kind of thing, and see if it takes.

And on another hand, I really have no problem with the military working to ensure a mostly-positive spin in Hollywood appearances. What they do is usually not very action-filled, and when it is, it's not "fun" or "pretty." It's flat-out ugly. They're going to get plenty of negative spin because what they do involves killing people. (In addition to the statisticallyextremely uncommon scandalous stuff we hear so much about lately.)

An army has to do awful things, and the public needs men able and willing to do those things. Often, we only hear/talk/care about what they do when it goes wrong. Really think about this:

1. We have a military so that we don't all have to deal with all of the awful things they have to do.
2. Because we don't have to deal with those awful things, we forget about them... or at least lose perspective on them.
3. We make unreasonable demands about how they do/don't do those awful things we originally tasked them to do.
4. They don't get it done, so it either doesn't get done or it falls back to us.
5. We decide to have a military, so that we don't have to deal... and so on.

Running PR for an organization like the military must be an absolute nightmare, because even on the best days, you're an organization whose job it is to kill lots of people(or at least stay prepared to do so). Seems to be that job would be impossible without a little "hero porn" and a bit of preemptive damage control.

I agree with most of what your saying, and indeed take it a bit furher as I am a militant and believe that the world is an ugly place and in the end when you strip past all the pretensions it all comes down to who is most willing and able to do the most damage. In a powerful country like the US we have been able to detach ourselves from that and pretend it's not the case, and it's increasingly been out downfall as morality and what people want to believe the world is like, trumps nessecity and keeping outselves on top so we can continue to enjoy the level of success and standard of living to which we are accustomed. With limited resources on the planet and the enviroment already suffering from current needs, never mind the increased stress put on it by developing nations that want more, the bottom line is not everyone cn live well, and people need to increasingly understand it's an "us or them" situation.

I've actually argued for a while that the US military should be given a lot more of a free hand and autonomy to do what is nessicary to keep the US on top, rather than the increasing trend of giving civilians and civilian leaders primacy in things they really don't understand or what to understand. That's how we've created messes like "The War On Terror" and garbage like "The Patriot Act" which was devised as a middle ground between peace time operations and actually declaring martial law and going on a full wartime footing which is arguably what we should have done, as half the problems we've created now came about from simply not properly using the tools, people, and laws we had.

That said from Bob's summary it does seem like it was trying to do things right though. Bad acting aside, a plotline like what your seeing is something people should be exposed to more often so they understand the logic behind a lot of the laws and security matters people want to take. Not to mention explaining why when certain people who know what they are talking about come accross like conspiricy nutjobs when you look at the sheer number of national affiliations that can be involved. A guy with lineneage and/or political pull in half a dozen countries and using all of those resources to go after the US is not all that uncommon, especially seeing as how those countries are oftentimes nothing like the US with many of them having GNPs lower than most states. Some guy pulling resources and under the table goverment support from six differant nations that generally don't cooperate overtly is no real differant than a big business doing the same across six differant states... and is perhaps easier because despite sovreignty the goverment in all those smaller nations can probably be bought far more easily as the same standards of investigating corruption don't exist.

Most notably however, I find it interesting to see that someone decided to "go there" with Mexico and allied US nations like the Phillipines finally. The issue with terrorists getting into the US through the mexican border has been there since we started paying attention, after 9/11 it was one of the first things uncovered. The issue isn't just one with drug cartels being involved, though they are a big concern since they will work for money (especially if they are already allied with middle eastern poppy cartels or something) and have been caught with things like tunnels going right under the border. The whole issue of mexican workers getting into the US is another one, after all some Arab who can pass for Mexican and speak spanish can probably get in with the illegals with minimal effort, etc. Nations like the Phillipines that don't police their shipping very well yet have favored trade status with the US can also present an issue.

Basically, when people hear about all these "crazy" plans control the borders, everyone focuses on those "poor illegal labourers who just want more money" (which is an issue in of itself) not with the entire issue of border penetration and how terrorists can enter or fuel cells that way. Ditto for wanting to get more hardcore on our trade and shipping policies which might cost some smaller nations money by slowing them down, but also prevent them from entering into the US.

Bob's summary (as far as it went) isn't perfect, but I think the whole reason he found it painful and hard to follow is pretty much why more people need to see terrorism presented that way.

Odin_kru:
he really did seem so frightened to make any negative comments about this movie.

It makes me wonder why he has so much "respect" for some people, but others can go screw themselves.

I personally have much more respect for the Navy SEALS than anyone who has every purchased a ticket to more than one transformers movie. I don't blame him.

Plus, just in general, it's kind of a huge social stigma to be seen criticizing the troops in the U.S.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here