The War of the Worlds

[cinemabon]

********WARNING: Spoilers in the content of this review********

War of the Worlds (2005) – A film by Steven Speilberg

Intense. That is the best word to describe this film to anyone who hasn’t seen it. This film is intense, very intense. Gone are the red-scare tainted images of the George Pal version from the 1950’s, with spacecraft suspended on wires, or the minister casting out the demon. Also missing is Well’s simplistic vision from the novel (invaders from Mars). Speilberg has learned from his elders and brought us a fine tale of suspenseful tension and a microcosmic look at what it feels like to be a refugee of war. America has been a very privileged nation. There have been only two wars fought on our soil (arguable). The first was the revolutionary. The second was the Civil War.

We have never been without our conveniences. In one of the very first scenes in the film, the main character, played quite well by mister screwball himself, Tom Cruise, reaches for the light switch, the telephone, the refrigerator, even the cell phone; none of them work. He steps outside. The cars are dead. Nothing that uses electricity works. As humans who’ve become dependent on our things, its amazing to see how quickly we turn back into uncivil animals when we no longer have them, running around scared, frightened, and friendless. Neighborhoods degenerate into survival of the fittest.

Speilberg covers all that territory and more in this newest adaptation of H. G. Well’s science fiction book, including the famous opening and closing narration to help explain the setting and the finish, a trick Well’s managed to pull off in the book. The scale of this war would have to match one modern audiences would find exciting. This is nothing less than Armageddon. As in the original story, armies of unstoppable creatures set about wiping mankind from the face of the Earth. That’s the obvious part.

Steven only starts with those images. The real story is one of survival. Given these circumstances, where do you go? What do you do? Well, with a bit of luck, and a mechanic next door, you hop into the only car that works in Yonkers (or wherever they are) and head for the hills away from the city. Unfortunately for deadbeat dad Cruise (his weekend to watch the kids), he must drag along a stubborn teen currently hating his father, and an unbelieving eight-year-old girl, one who never stops asking questions.

It turns out they can’t run fast enough, and eventually, the war catches back up with them. In a series of very intense (there’s that word again) scenes, people run for their lives from the onslaught. Some people chose to be heroic, helping others; while other greedy people shoot each other for necessities. Cruise and his family are forced to flee in whatever way they can and end up in the basement of a farmhouse (this scene also taken from the book). There is a twist as a rather fanatical Tim Robbins already occupies the basement. In a very tension filled seven-minute scene, the aliens probe the house, looking for whatever they can find useful. Humans it turns out are naturally useful as food. Aren’t we always?

Cruise is constantly being torn by having to fight for his children’s survival versus saving others around him. This conflict continues through the film, even at the end. Speilberg’s use of conflict helps to drive the story forward while maintaining an air of tension, although most of us know the famous ending. Did he change the end from the book? I can’t give that away. That would be unforgivable. However I will mention one other thing about the technical part of the film.

As usual, Speilberg has the same technical people helping on every film. Michael Kahn, A.C.E. cuts action sequences in a way that paces the film rather evenly throughout with a fine balance between the quiet and the spastic. John Williams score is both bizarre and mundane. There is nothing that distinguishes itself (no soaring violins, no melodies to whistle). The score does underlie the material in a very supportive fashion, harking back to Williams’ earlier days when he was dubbed the composer to the disaster movies, as could easily be labeled this time, too. Dennis Muren, who gave Speilberg his aliens and his dinosaurs, returns to create menacing but beautiful ships, with creepy tentacles, and fog horns that blast before they annihilate.

War of the Worlds is a fantastic tale of science fiction, told with stark realism, and often showing brutal fearful images of mutilation. This is no film a child should see. When Cruise falls on top of his daughter to save her life, my son cried out to me in the darkness of the theater, “Dad, this is too much.” He covered his eyes. I felt guilty dragging him to see such terrifying images of people being reduced to dust or having their bodies sucked dry. When we stepped outside, I turned to apologize, only to see his smiling face say, “Wow! That was soooo good!” I’ll still make sure he doesn’t eat pizza tonight!

[tabuno]

*Real Spoilers*

This remake, update just doesn't make a lot of sense. There's too many holes in the storyline and the apparent manipulative formula of the scenes seem almost forced. Even from the beginning of the invasion the semi-mechanical tripods (an attempt to honor likely the H.G. Wells image of our invaders seems awkward in a way. The original movie actually seems more modern and updated than in some cases this movie attempt to work backwards. The aliens seem almost retro at some points without the knowledge of infrared scanners like those used in the television series 24 by the counter terrorist unit, cages for people without force fields.

The manipulative storyline begins to drag the movie where coincidence builds upon unlikely coincidence as Tom Cruise tries to for some fantastic reason reunite his children with their mother (who has divorced him) and lives in Boston. He finds a van that runs after an electromagnetic pulse wipes out any electronic device. He is able to negotiate around the freeways at ease while all the other vehicles are conveniently mostly out of his path. There's the required mob scene. There's the how do one's get to be the last family on the ferry which of course is later capsided. We have a young daughter who needs to go and relieve herself but even after her experience with dead people, suddenly these no time to actually go...(I probably would have shit in my pants right there and then). Then there's the son who seems for no real good explanation has this death wish who actually survives at the end (a tribute to the good, happy American ending).

The absence of any focus on the military effort to counter-attack the invasion (quite the opposite of the original movie version) is an interesting decision, making the whole military counter-offensive look uncoordinated and confusing...nobody seems to no what their are doing and where they are going throughout the movie - more like zombies without intelligence.

Perhaps initially what was encouraging about this remake at the beginning was the interesting family dynamics and the infantile Tom Cruise having to grow up some in the during. The interaction between Tom Cruise, his movie ex-wife, her new boyfriend and even the children are good, yet this family dynamic gets a bit ragged, especially where the son is concerned. What I did like was Tom Cruise's character in terms of his vulnerability as a father that actually carried through much of the movie - some realism for a change.

The creepiness was there, but unfortuately, this movie came across not as a horror/thriller but more like a science fiction action movie. The eerie red color was effective. The overall texture of the movie, the disaster sequences powerful, yet all this is let down by the actual unfolding of the substance of the movie itself.

Six out of Ten Stars or B-

[cinemabon]

I believe Cruise' character (Ray Ferrier) was being driven by the need to keep his children together. He felt helpless to do that himself. Yet, when he saw people being vaporized around him, he focused on the comment his daughter made, simply "take me to mom." It all made sense to me. The frustrating part was how Speilberg built the tension between the father and the son. Ray Ferrier demonstrated that clearly when he forced his son to play catch (what should have been an act of bonding) and then disciplined him with the fastball, which his son quickly rejected and walked away. The alienation obviously had taken place long before the film started, prompted by Ray himself, as in the engine in the center of the room, which took precedence over the children. Even his son pointed out to him how self-centered he behaved.

Granted the obstacles on the freeway were conveniently absent. But I thought the crowd pushing in on them later was very effective, acting as a metaphor for the world pressing in on them. I also like the scene where Ray held his daughter while he watched his son heroically rescue dangling people trying to get on the boat. The tie-in with the original at the very end (for those of you who spot it) was very trivial, as when Donner put the original Lois on the train in Superman. There was also a major goof caught by most people (the working camcorder). I completely missed that (as did Speilberg, evidently).

[bix171]

The first half is very good. Very scary. Very despairing. Kind of a mix between "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" and "Schindler's List".

The second half is not as good, but still worth watching. Basically a series of cliffhangers in which uber-TomCruise rescues his daughter in a series of increasingly resourceful ways. Some of these set pieces seem to have been copied from "Jurassic Park" (though there are images from just about every Spielberg film; the fillm's like an hommage he's paying to himself).

Cruise's and co-star Dakota Fanning's acting skills are slightly above competent. Stronger leads would've helped.

Excellent special effects. The most chilling: a runaway passenger train with flames shooting through each window.

[tabuno]

*Spoilers*

Both my wife and I were in disbelief as to how at the very end in the climax that the whole family was brought back together so conveniently including the ex-wife and his husband and their parents at exactly the place where they had gone to in Boston as if nobody else were displaced or killed. The likelihood of this happening was so remote as to make the ending just another American - feel good ending without substance or belief. It was a big let down for me. And then to have the son miraculously survive it really put the movie into a children's fantasy movie genre where everything turns out ok which really did not. The only redeeming value was the fact that Tom Cruise didn't get to be sole survivor and his ex-wife's husband survives to allow the earlier dysfunctional issues to be addressed that were actually one of the most powerful components of this movie in the beginning. I would have preferred to see how both Tom Cruise's character and the ex-wife sought to bring their children back together (thus perhaps having the ex-wife having the son and the attempt to bring both their daughter and son back together). There really wasn't any female angle to this movie except for Dakota Fanning and that draw isn't powerful enough to bring in older adult women. This supposedly blockbuster left out a key demographic.

There were no bodies in the huge plane crash. Again another impossible scene considering we see so many bodies later in a river. I know perhaps there were all vaporized, but somehow the crash scene didn't look real - the wreckage itself was too compact and not spread out as in real scenes.

The runaway passenger train was chilling, but yet so had an image from The Polar Express for some reason, something about being emotionally empty - zombies. While this scene was chilling, it just seemed to me another conveniently placed coicidence designed for shock value as if the director went around trying to come up with interesting scenes that haven't been seen before and just found a place to put it in. I thought oh no, another one of those inserts that really didn't involve Tom Cruise or Dakota Fanning - it was as if they could of just stayed home and then somehow watch as many strange occurrences happen to them (as if this movie itself became one of those composite characters in a movie that supposed to represent the everyman or everywoman because it's impossible to have every character in a movie).

The crowd pressing around the car scene just seemed to be one of those cliches from barely a problem to a hugely a problem and this is odd considering how Tom Cruise's character is almost paranoid in the beginning about even leaving the car alone in the sparsely populated scene. It would be unrealistic to think that Tom hadn't given his son a BIG lecture about avoiding large crowded places. Again, this scene just seemed to be another attempt at shocking the audience because it's been done before and this movie was about incorporating all these scenes into this movie, one shock after another just for the sake of doing them. Strangely, enough it seemed that the town was too small for such a large crowd - it felt that the crowd would just have continued on somewhere else. Even the gun scene didn't seem too realistic, I don't think Tom Cruise's character would have been able to obtain the crowd reaction as he did...instead of the crowd immediately running away, it was so dense that the reaction would have been just to continue pressing in and just crush him regardless of the gun.

[cinemabon]

I'm inclined largely to agree on the ending. Even more maudlin were the perfectly groomed smiling grandparents, sticking their heads around Mom like a Norman Rockwell painting. Tim Robbin's prediction of "more coming" would have been better, if the aliens made some attempt at adaptation, just as their species must have done on their homeworld.

The book's ending was very different. The protagonist was surprised as anyone when the aliens began to drop like flies. He stood amid the wreckage of a city and prayed. Boston, for some odd reason was left untouched. That seems highly unlikely, if humans were indeed their main source of food.

We've argued endlessly about how books are changed for film. Speilberg left some of the plot points intact, but neglected to leave in the purpose of the story about human routine breeding complacency. Perhaps Wells saw how vulnerable England was to outside invasion and feared there was no defense for it. He used the Martian invasion as an allegory. Speilberg's focus is on a grand scale using visual impact versus human intimacy and often loses sight of his overall audience (as he did in A.I.).

Roger Ebert did not like most aspects of the film (paraphrase "...why would an alien race vaporize humans only to suck their blood out and harvest them later?" and "How could spacecraft be left underground in a city full of subway lines, sewers and gaslines?"). He also did not care for the spaceships: ("Everyone knows that a craft on three spindly thin legs is inherently unstable.") He cared for a few of the images and how they were carefully constructed, but otherwise, he felt the entire premise of the film weak. "Kubrick was right not to show aliens in 2001. The actual aliens are anticlimatic."

I did find the film entertaining but there are certainly a number of flaws, as if Speilberg were in a hurry to release the film, and after a while, he just didn't care what the end product look like as long as it made money.

[trevor826]

Perhaps Wells saw how vulnerable England was to outside invasion and feared there was no defense for it.

The original book was an attack on British colonialisation of other countries and the fact that the British Empire bled those countries dry as did the French, Italians etc. Slightly comparable with what the US is doing now.

Cheers Trev.

[tabuno]

Interesting...please expand on this connection. How does British colonization pertain to War of the Worlds? Are the aliens, the British and the beginnings of the loss of their empire an example of how the British began to die out in their conquered lands, much like the invaders from Mars did on earth in War of the Worlds?

[stevetseitz]

Spielberg's re-make offered nothing new in terms of substance and threw out what I really liked about the original movie.

Dakota Fanning is the William Shatner of child actors.

Good effects and CGI. Sounds effects were fantastic.

I liked the ships in the original far better even with their invisible tripod legs. These new martian ships seemed stolen from "The Matrix" refuse pile.

Who else is sick to death of movies with spindly legged contraptions that are built less for function and more for looks?

Even outside their ships, the actual aliens were lame clones of every other recent movie alien (Independence Day anyone?). Being monopedal was their only interesting feature. Wouldn't they be tripedal like their constructs? In the original their vision closely mimicked the three optical sensors on their machines.

I suppose Hollywood thinks it is really clever by adding the element of cliched " dysfunctional family" to the mix. Yawn. Also, why replace the stud scientist with an everyman?

Cruise seemed more concerned about what his kids were "exposed" to rather than their actual safety.

I admit it was an interesting choice to have the character played by Tom Cruise decide to kill the crazed Tim Robbins character who posed a threat to himself and his daughter. The bodies floating down the river was a nice touch.

The places where the movie succeeded was where the script and director paid homage to H.G. Wells such as the great voiceover work by Morgan Freeman in the beginning and the end of the film. It's refreshing to hear the english language written and spoken so clearly and concisely.

It's too bad that the element of faith which was so prevalent in the 1953 version was totally lacking in this version.

It was nice to see Gene Barry make a cameo at the end, but the reunion lacked any emotional resonance.

I loved the surprise ending: Who would have guessed that Robbie was fire-proof?

Let's all admit we wanted a re-creation of the scene in the 1953 version where Gene Barry plants some sharp, heavy tool into martian cranium and the thing runs off screaming. My older brother and I nearly wore out the rewind button of our Beta VCR on that scene.

[wpqx]

Well was it great? Hell no, but it was Spielberg. I knew what I was getting, and of course all the good guys had to make it. Techincally I do think the movie was better than most, but Spielberg generally does go a bit further than most filmmakers when it comes to making his films LOOK great. If the supporting cast was a little weak it was just so that Tom Cruise could seem stronger. I enjoyed the film, but very far from a work of art.

[oscar jubis]

This survival tale delivers a series of spectacular images and visceral thrills that must be experienced at a theatre. Home viewing would diminish their impact considerably. Advancements in special effects technology and their expert application justify the remake. Some of the criticisms expressed here, including Ebert's, may be valid, but none impinged on my enjoyment of the movie-movie.

[tabuno]

oscar jubis: "This survival tale delivers a series of spectacular images and visceral thrills that must be experienced at a theatre. Home viewing would diminish their impact considerably. Advancements in special effects technology and their expert application justify the remake. Some of the criticisms expressed here, including Ebert's, may be valid, but none impinged on my enjoyment of the movie-movie."

tabuno: With the increasing size of home wall screens and the great sound systems that a number of home theaters now have, I would have think that your argument that this movie must be seen in a theater has been weakened by the very technology and expert application that you have just mentioned. If criticisms of this movie are valid as you say, then you enjoyment of this movie must be based on some rather different criteria. For me storyline and characterization are essential components for enjoying a movie. One can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on special effects, but if the story and characters aren't compelling and interesting, consistent and believable, then I can't imagine anyone really enjoying this movie. I would think that most if not all the subscribing members would be more interested in a movie than just the spectcular images and visceral effects. If one really loves this stuff, I would offer my opinion that "Day After Tommorrow" (2004) offered the best spectaculer and visceral effects of a disaster/action/thiller movie.

[trevor826]

Please Say More Trevor826

Sorry I didn't check back on this thread, Wells saw the way the British were colonizing large areas of the world and ripping them of all their natural products, manpower and resources, he could also see that this was going to collapse in on itself (as it did) as countries would fight if need be for their right to independence. Some would call him prophetic, I just think he was an intelligent man who could see the obvious.

Are the aliens, the British and the beginnings of the loss of their empire an example of how the British began to die out in their conquered lands, much like the invaders from Mars did on earth in War of the Worlds?

Pretty much yes.

Cheers Trev.

[tabuno]

Trev826 thanks for your follow-up.

Stretching war a little bit further, I am struck by the similarities between 9-11 and the United States fall out. While we were concerned about freedom, since the attack, Al Quaida, Iraq, I experience a similar impact of our American war on foreign lands and that in turn we have become infected ourselves in a significant loss of our own freedoms here in the United States, we have become our own enemies. While fighting a war to defend freedom, we at home are slowly losing more and more of our own. We invaded other lands and we have brought back an infection to our own country.

[stevetseitz]

>>Stretching war a little bit further, I am struck by the similarities between 9-11 and the United States fall out.<<

S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g is the key word here. I'm sorry but I must respond to this non movie-related diatribe.

First of all, it isn't an "American" war on foreign soil. It's a coalition led by America who has been most vocal and active in the war on terror. There has been no significant loss of our "freedoms" here in the United States unless of course you are a radical, extremist muslim who supports terrorism. We haven't "invaded" other lands. I don't see anyone changing country names to "United States of Iraq" or "United States of Afghanistan".

Our leaders have assessed the dangers posed to Americans and citizens of other free nations from certain terror friendly totalitarian regimes. They have mobilized military forces to root out some of the biggest agitators in a region plagued for centuries by instability which breeds poverty, exploitation and totalitarian regimes. If you don't drain the swamp you will never get rid of the mosquitoes.

Terrorism from the Middle East is not a new phenomenon. This dates back to some 600 A.D. when Islam grew rapidly by the sword until it threatened the whole of the Middle East. The early Crusades were a response to the rapid expansion of Islam and were surprisingly successful considering how lucky the crusaders got and how many mistakes were made by the Muslim defenders.

The Crusades and the current war on terror are both simply flare ups in a long standing "Cold War" between an aggresive and expanding Islam and a more passive Judeo-Christian "western" civilization.

By the later Crusades, Muslim defenders became the aggressors taking back what ground was gained by the Crusaders and more.

If not for the untimely death of powerful Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and fortuitous invasion of the Mongols from the East our maps and our culture (not to mention our high standard of living, value for human rights and free and democratic way of life) would be quite different.

We have sought to provide more of the world the freedom that we take for granted here at home. In doing so, we improve the human rights conditions and create an environment in which democracy and capitalism can thrive.

People often mistakenly think even a "just war" is ultimately evil and is the enemy of human life. Just looking at the numbers bears out a different conclusion: By comparison, totalitarianism is the truly the biggest murderer and beats out all armed conflict by a factor of three in terms of loss of human life.

Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Islamic theocracy have killed hundreds of MILLIONS.

To allow these types of extremist idealogies to fester
in any area of the world is irresponsible and cruel. To simple decide that certain people, because they live in a certain area or are of a certain ethnic background are not worthy of the freedoms and responsibilities we cherish is a subtle form of racism.

[trevor826]

Wow! you've managed to re-write over a thousand years of history in a couple of paragraphs, you must be very proud of yourself!

By the way, in your list of mass killers through history you missed out one of the biggest, Christians particularly the Catholic Church, try looking at the history of Latin America for a start!

I really suggest you start reading some decent books on history.

Trev.

[stevetseitz]

>>Wow! you've managed to re-write over a thousand years of history in a couple of paragraphs, you must be very proud of yourself!<<

Whatever.

I can cite dates, names, etc. The facts are on my side. Can YOU do the same? I'll be glad to share my sources including:

Sir Steven Runciman's "A History of the Crusades"

Hans Eberhard Mayer's "The Crusades"

Jean Richard's "The Crusades"

Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The Crusades: A Short History"


Shall I continue?

You might want to examine the tons of data on this site:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

The data on the site supports the conclusion that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity and that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. This, of course, includes ECONOMIC power to all you socialists out there.


Your tagline "The less you know" seems fitting.

Your knee-jerk response does not even bother to address the fact that the inherently anti-semitic Islam (the Koran compares Jews to "apes and swine") was expanded in a violent and aggressive fashion initially by it's founder: a wealthy and powerful political figure in Mohammed and continued under the various theocratic regimes that followed.

[trevor826]

Let's keep it as simple as possible. War/fighting has been used as a solution for eons and what has it proved?

It Doesn't work!

Fact. The Crusades were used as an excuse to satisfy the power lust and greed of the European nobles and the Catholic church.

Fact. The Catholic church instigated the slaughter of millions of naturalised South Americans in the name of God.

Fact. The German army in WWII carried out their decimation of Europe and Russia and the Middle East and the slaughter of millions of Jews while wearing a belt buckle that stated Gott Mit Uns.

Fact. The new Americans virtually wiped out the native americans.

Fact. Anti semitism has existed since year dot, Jews have been persecuted from all sides and especially by the Christian church. It was seen as perfectly normal, you only have to look at "The Merchant of Venice" to see that it was part of everyday culture.

To quote from an essay by Laurence M. Vance.

Many supporters of the senseless war in Iraq are high on religion. Add a religious element to a war and the faithful will come out in droves in support of it. In the case of the current war in Iraq this is easy to do. Because the United States is supposedly a "Christian nation," the war can be turned into a modern-day crusade since Iraq is a "Muslim nation."

The use of religion in war is as old as history itself. If there is one thing that men are willing to fight and die for it is their religious beliefs. But unfortunately, it is also historically true that many are willing to kill or justify killing under the guise of religion.

Trev.

And yes the more I learn through life, the wider my vision becomes and the more I realise just how little I or anyone else knows.

[tabuno]

stevetseitz: "First of all, it isn't an "American" war on foreign soil. It's a coalition led by America who has been most vocal and active in the war on terror. There has been no significant loss of our "freedoms" here in the United States unless of course you are a radical, extremist muslim who supports terrorism. We haven't "invaded" other lands. I don't see anyone changing country names to "United States of Iraq" or "United States of Afghanistan". "

tabuno: I better start off by correcting my terminology about America's activities in Iraq. If one is to believe in the U.S. Constitution, it would probably be better to call our war a "military action" since the U.S. Congress hasn't really officially declared war on Iraq. The United States hasn't been at war since WWII if I'm reading history right.

The so-called "coalition led by America" has been pretty much a name-only phrase to make our country's action appear more legitimate. America and to a lesser extent Britain have been the most pronounced presence in Iraq with token support, reluctant support from other countries who were pulled into our military action. What one calls "no significant loss of our "freedoms" here is debatable since the national security apparatus is now keeping track of many activities of the U.S. citizens and has encroached on the rights of a few citizens and others that several Western countries, our allies have deemed illegal, particularly in arrests and torture.

So far it appears that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not for national security interests, no weapons of mass destruction have been found or even suspected now, it appears that so far the leaders of our country misled the public into the war. Public support has fallen to below 50%. Our national security is now less than before the war. Terrorism is now up. Our world is now much more unstable and insecure. More than $87 billion and almost 2,000 American lives have been lost. For America to presume it can take over a country and be a beacon of liberty is attempting to change hundreds of years of cultural development without truly understanding that cultures evolve in certain ways and that western, technological, democracy isn't truly what military action is about nowadays - it's a cover for other covert purposes.

[Johann]

I'll stay out of this one. But be warned Trevor!

Steve will bombard you with meaningless facts and figures that miss the point completely.

[trevor826]

Thanks, I think I'll let him keep his blinkers on.

Cheers Trev.

[stevetseitz]

>>Let's keep it as simple as possible. War/fighting has been used as a solution for eons and what has it proved?

It Doesn't work!<<

Are you totally blind? Of course it works: The Civil War ended slavery in the U.S. , WWII ended the extermination of millions of innocents and stopped the Nazis and Fascists from spreading across Europe (and the totalitarian regime of Imperial Japan in the South Pacific) and victory in the Cold War ended the illusion that Soviet Communism was viable system.

Fact. The Crusades were used as an excuse to satisfy the power lust and greed of the European nobles and the Catholic church.<<

False. Your lack of knowledge is staggering. The initial Crusades were a response to rampant Muslim expansion throughout the Levant. To view the crusades as some organized military effort is laughably naive. A vast majority of the Crusaders were landless peasants and religious pilgrims. The armies that did go weren't much more than disorganized group of religious knights like the Templars and the Hospitallers. Are you really naive enough to think that wealthy lords gave up much if not all of their power in Europe, forfeiting their lands and wealth to finance expensive quests in the name of "lust and greed"? It shows a complete disconnect with the mentality of the medieval mind. Modern people can't imagine leaving hearth and home and traversing hostile regions, battling every sort of adversity for a concept like salvation. It's true that the later (more unsuccessful) Crusades were efforts by various political forces within Europe to leverage power.

>>Fact. The Catholic church instigated the slaughter of millions of naturalised South Americans in the name of God.<<

The efforts to expand Christianity to the people of the South America by the Church was often at odds with the political ambitions and conquest desired by the leaders in Europe. To confuse the two is beyond ignorant. It is disingenuous.

>>Fact. The German army in WWII carried out their decimation of Europe and Russia and the Middle East and the slaughter of millions of Jews while wearing a belt buckle that stated Gott Mit Uns.<<

Ummmm...and what stopped the German army? You in a chat room? It was WAR. Bloody war. Horrible war. People killing other people and breaking things. Fact: The Nazis served a totally secular and non-religious and NATIONAL SOCIALIST regime.

If you have two choices and both are bad you must choose the lesser of two evils. War killed some 40 million people in the 20th century. Totalitarianism killed 170 million. Do the math. This does not even take into account that a good portion of that 40 million were killed in wars against the rapid expansion of totalitarian regimes. Sometimes the good people of this world have to make hard choices to defeat the evil ideas and philosophies.

>>Fact. The new Americans virtually wiped out the native americans.<<

Fact: There is archealogical evidence that the so-called "native americans" wiped out their predecessors. Kennewick man and so forth. Brutal warfare was common between the "native American" peoples in America. So it has been throughout history. There is no static utopian model in human history. Change is the only constant.

>>Fact. Anti semitism has existed since year dot, Jews have been persecuted from all sides and especially by the Christian church. It was seen as perfectly normal, you only have to look at "The Merchant of Venice" to see that it was part of everyday culture.<<

Fact: It is the extremist Muslim nations that practice Anti-Semitism as a form of policy these days. It is they who financially support terror worldwide. It speaks volumes that the ugly re-birth of Anti-Semitism is happening fastest in the European nations that opposed the war in Iraq.

[Johann]

See? Did I call it or did I call it?


Those tidbits and facts are all fine and dandy Steve but the fact is war should be an absolute, final, last-ditch resort.

All you've proven is that human beings have gone to war over the centuries. You've shown that the human species are dumb, that's all.

Slavery? It still exists on this planet. Who gives a shit about the civil war's impact on slavery? It still exists.

Jews are still being persecuted. WWII hasn't eliminated hatred for Jewish people. You seem to be summing up war as the best (only?) way to deal with horrors of the day.

When the fuck is someone gonna step up and say PEACE is the ultimate way?

O wait! Gandhi did. That's right.

But he was assassinated.

John Lennon did. That's right.

But he was assassinated.

I guess war is the only way to solve problems, huh?

Is/was Iraq an absolute, last-ditch resort?
Nope. Not by a fucking long shot.


Human beings will be at war forever.
Life sucks. Grab a helmet.

[stevetseitz]

Johann,

I'm not sure you have responded to the content of what I wrote or if this is just a latent pent-up response to the last exchange

>>the fact is war should be an absolute, final, last-ditch resort.<<

O.K.......and when did I say war should be undertaken lightly?
If you ask me is war the best or first option I'll say no, but if you ask me if war is preferable to totalitarianism, I'll say EVERY TIME. The numbers prove that totalitarian regimes (like Saddam's, like the Taliban's , like Hitler's, like Stalin's) kill far more people (almost 5 times as many) than war.



>>Slavery? It still exists on this planet. Who gives a shit about the civil war's impact on slavery? It still exists.<<

And ever will slavery exist, as long as a single person decides to exploit a weaker person. The point is that slavery as an INSTITUTION no longer exists. It is abhored by reasonable people the world over.

>>Jews are still being persecuted. WWII hasn't eliminated hatred for Jewish people. You seem to be summing up war as the best (only?) way to deal with horrors of the day.<<

Racism and intolerance will be with the human race as long as one person decides some other person is inferior. The point is that, under the Nazis, racism and extermination of other races was an institution that was defeated by brave Allied soldiers.



>>Is/was Iraq an absolute, last-ditch resort?
Nope. Not by a fucking long shot.<<

Oh, I'm sure the bleeding hearts could have had a few more rallies and everything would have been alright.

Iraq was the culmination of decades of diplomatic efforts, failed (and undermined) sanctions, and no improvement in the situation. 9/11 simply proved that state sponsors of terror are too dangerous to allow to hold sway over vital regions of our planet.


>>Human beings will be at war forever.<<

So it's a good thing for those of us on the side of human rights, prosperity and democracy have a more powerful army.

[Johann]

Iraq is the culmination of a business chase that began with George Herbert Walker Bush and is continuing under George W. Bush.

There are photos on the net of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983, after a weapons deal.

There is mountains of evidence that Bush planned on invading Iraq as soon as he got into office.
And it is an American Invasion- not a "coalition"- what a stupid term for this "military action". It's an invading army, romping and stomping and killing anything that moves. They are foreigners, a foreign army, doing whatever the hell it wants, on orders from an imperial, fascist "administration".

To suggest otherwise is the height of blindness.

You say war is better than totalitarianism. I agree.
Problem is, Saddam was not only a dictator with a totalitarian regime, he was the leader of a country with the second largest oil reserves on the earth. As you said once upon a time:
Connect The Dots.

You're missing the point completely. The circumstances surrounding this "war" are not as cut and dried as you claim.

There is way more to consider. Way more to scrutinize.

For instance, people's lives. If you are the President, and you are contemplating war, you explore all the options. You make damn sure that this is the right thing to do. You make sure every shred of your being is invested in making sure this is a worthy cause. (after all, shouldn't dying for something be a carefully thought out thing before a decision is made?)

Look what we have now in Iraq. Was it worth it? Dubya seems to think so. (And he must. His shit about "you know where I stand" would be gone with the wind if he said otherwise).

Yep, Saddam's gone. Yee-hah, no more horrible regime.
But why are soldiers and civilians still dying? the average number of Iraqis who die daily is 34. 34 a day have been dying since march 2003. Soldiers? Who knows. We do know we can't trust the "news" to deliver us the truth on the war dead.

We know that Dubya lies. Constantly.
He makes Pinnochio look like matchstickman with a splinter.

There is no government in Iraq. There are no rules or defined "society" there. There is chaos- a country in ruins, with an occupying military that likes to torture people, steal millions of dollars (the U.S. army has found many many large stashes of money-millions and millions in fact- all U.S. bills too!- we don't know WHAT they are doing over there, let's face it) and don't forget shooting civilians! they do it all the time! people who get out of their cars, hands up, BLAM! Sorry, you might be a terrorist...

Wars kill less people than regimes?

Not this war Bubba. This war is changing all that.

The military industrial complex can sustain lots of casualties- it's in the budget.

[Johann]

At the beginning Iraq was all about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and how Saddam was a hair's breath away from launching these weapons.


Then, somehow the reason for the war changed. It became
"We're freeing the Iraqi people".

When the weapons thing was given some scrutiny, and was found to be a complete, utter lie, the Busheviks claimed that they were now "bringing peace and democracy to the middle east".

How sweet. Bush cares so much about the middle east and the prospects for peace (amazing, huh? coming from a WAR PRESIDENT) that he's changed his reasons for war totally.

And we are supposed to buy this shit.

We are supposed to believe that Bush was acting with America's interests pressed to his bosom, with his fathoms-deep concern for the USA and it's people's safety.

Right.

He's gonna launch bombs to save us. He's gonna "attack them abroad so we don't get attacked at home" Right.

He's got no other interest in Iraq besides protecting the American people. Right.

He's so full of shit IT HURTS.

[Johann]

To get back to the film, It's a serious guilty pleasure.
It's the "Emmerich Godzilla" of this year.

Dakota fanning is starting to get on my nerves.
Combined with her, Tom's "Katie Holmes schizophrenics" hanging over the whole thing and Spielberg's penchant for overblowing an already overblown idea and you have War of the Worlds.

It's kinda weird, but I kept saying to myself that I shouldn't like this film, I should hate everything about it. But I was really getting into it!

(Maybe it was the reefers...)

Some sfx shots are as awesome as any I've seen in my life.

[stevetseitz]

>>Iraq is the culmination of a business chase that began with George Herbert Walker Bush and is continuing under George W. Bush.

There are photos on the net of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983, after a weapons deal.<<

Rumsfeld was sent as an envoy to try and garner support in the Middle East after the Shah was toppled in Iran. He has been a Sec Def before. This is what you would refer to as a diplomatic phase in dealing with Saddam. The U.S. policy at the time (THE COLD WAR) to favor secular thugs vs. idealogical nutjobs. This strategy failed to calculate the exremist Islamic element.

>>There is mountains of evidence that Bush planned on invading Iraq as soon as he got into office.<<

??? This mountain is sure difficult to find. Having a plan for contingencies does not mean that you expect every one of them to occur. If there WERE no plan it would be serious negligence.


And it is an American Invasion- not a "coalition"- what a stupid term for this "military action". It's an invading army, romping and stomping and killing anything that moves.<<

Now you are just being ignorant. One of my best friends, now a major in Iraq is in charge of rebuilding and improving infrastructure conditions that were already horrible in Iraq PRIOR to the war.

>>They are foreigners, a foreign army, doing whatever the hell it wants, on orders from an imperial, fascist "administration".<<

More ignorance. You don't even know what a fascist is if you use that term for this administration.



>>Yep, Saddam's gone. Yee-hah, no more horrible regime.
But why are soldiers and civilians still dying? the average number of Iraqis who die daily is 34. 34 a day have been dying since march 2003. Soldiers? Who knows. We do know we can't trust the "news" to deliver us the truth on the war dead.<<

Consider the alternative. If you take any similar timespan during Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq and average the number of people he murdered, it's a greater figure than the soldiers and civilians that have died during this war.


>>There is no government in Iraq. There are no rules or defined "society" there. There is chaos- a country in ruins, with an occupying military that likes to torture people, steal millions of dollars (the U.S. army has found many many large stashes of money-millions and millions in fact- all U.S. bills too!- we don't know WHAT they are doing over there, let's face it) and don't forget shooting civilians! they do it all the time! people who get out of their cars, hands up, BLAM! Sorry, you might be a terrorist...<<

You are insane if you think we sent an army over to Iraq to loot the country and shoot civilians. Not even the conspiracy clowns like Micheal Moore have made such ludicous claims.

Here is a quote from BBCArabic by Iraqi Hassan al-Saadoun Diyala regarding President Bush's June 28th speech:

"Thank you courageous president; you faced down the whole world in order to rid the world from terrorism, Wahabi extremists and those who have supported them amongst the weaker Arabs. Iraqis are grateful for your courage and support. You are a true leader."

Another quote from an Iraqi on BBCArabic:

"The Iraqi people will never forget the sacrifices of members of the coalition in Iraq in their efforts to bring about democracy and to expunge terrorism. We will also always remember the role played by the Arab dictatorships in their efforts to destroy Iraq"

Muthafar al-Anzi

Abdul Al Suja an Iraqi in Ramallah had this to say:

"As an Iraqi, I am uniquely qualified to post on this discussion. First off, life is definitely better under the coalition than under Saddam. Saddam's regime killed thousands of my fellow Iraqis. The only way people in the "West" don't see this is because they have a media with a liberal bias.

"In spite of all the bad things we face on a daily basis in Iraq, life is beautiful without Saddam."

Jalal Baghdadi, Baghdad

>>Wars kill less people than regimes?

Not this war Bubba. This war is changing all that.<<

Not true. Look at the numbers.


>>At the beginning Iraq was all about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and how Saddam was a hair's breath away from launching these weapons.<<

Bull. It was about three things.

1. State sponsorship of terrorism.
2. Weapons of Mass destruction that every major intrelligence agency agreed Saddam had.
3. Human rights atrocities within Iraq.

We know Iraqis had their hands in the first World Trade Center attack. It is beyond doubt that agents of Iraq's intelligence were privy to information about the attacks of 9/11.

State sponsorship of terrorism is any intelligence, financial support, weapons , training and refuge given to terrorists.

We know Iraq provided all these things to various Islamic terror groups including Al-Queda.

You choose to believe some wacky conspiracy theory because that is your luxury. The grown ups of the world need to make the tough decisions to make the world a safer place.

[Johann]

Rumsfeld was there to make sure Saddam got his toys.
Not for "diplomacy". Look it up. If you persist in watering down what he was doing I'll post exactly what he was doing "with primary sources". Just say the word- I've done my homework.



"This mountain" ain't hard to find. Start with the Downing Memo.


I never said they aren't trying to re-build Iraq. They are.
Too bad it'll take more money, years and manpower than anybody has at the moment. Ironic and sad that killings and bombings are occurring right next to "trying to fix it".
All the while with no discernable "country".


Ignorance? No way boss- I'm staring right at it.
I'm looking it straight in the eye.
I've never been more clear.

If I was ignorant I would say this war was worth it.

Did it occur to you that the quotes from Iraqi's might be from Iraqi's that are shall we say, "less than intelligent"? Is it possible that these people (who are in the thick of it- they're "right there")
that they don't know Shah from shishkebabs?

I can also find quotes from Iraqis' who say life under Saddam was
way better, so don't throw me quotes from Iraqis. They are highly subjective. I have my doubts about Iraqis who love the Americans. sorry. I just do.

I also never said the U.S. is just there to "LOOT AND SHOOT".
But they are definitely doing it. (Goes with the territory I guess!)

Conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. Anyone with a brain can see what happened. It's beyond conspiracy now. It's accepted as truth. Bush is there for oil.

Do you need Bush himself to break down & cry on national TV and say
"I'm a crook- I used this office to go to Iraq to make money with the Global Oil Industry"?

Seems to be the case.

[stevetseitz]

I think we've gone over this territory before so I don't wish to start a non movie related thread. I merely responded to some allegorical inferences about "War of the Worlds"

Loony conspiracy theories just don't wash. Besides the fact that you have no proof, Bush's main opponents would have to be "in on it" or else they would be using this information to discredit and destroy him. Lord knows they have tried all other avenues.

O.K. let's put the name calling and "Rumsfeld is the anti-christ" nonsense aside. The data still shows that Saddam was more lethal to the human race than all the war casualties, car bombings and attacks by terrorists combined.

But you didn't care about the deaths prior to the war...you only care now because you can make silly claims about oil.


>>I also never said the U.S. is just there to "LOOT AND SHOOT".
But they are definitely doing it.<<

Oh, there NOW you said it. Somehow I knew it would slip out.

>> Bush is there for oil.<<

LOL! And how exactly does it benefit Bush? How exactly does it benefit Cheney? How does it benefit Rumsfeld?

You make claims and accusations but offer no proof.

Regardless, your claims fail to persuade me and my facts and data are apparently unable to penetrate the malted hops and bong resin that cloud your mind.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.


It's more productive to put aside present issues, partially because feelings are still sore on both sides of the controversial issue, and look at history from a conceptual standpoint.

That is why I linked to data rich website: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Hopefully, we can discuss long term trends and reasonable strategies and responses to threats to human rights.

This people of our world are perhaps a century or two away from being on the same page. The united force will be democratic capitalism. The dividing force is totalitarian idealogues like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. The sooner we bring our prosperous and beneficial way of life to the rest of the world the safer we'll all be.

[cinemabon]

Gentlemen, civility, please, I beg you.

This site is a film site. F I L M ! This is not the Johnny come lately debate society on the war issues in your lives. I appreciate your enthusiasm but this thread had to do with a work by a gifted filmmaker. He was not drawing comparisons to wars or terrorists acts. He was trying to make his own interpretation of a literary work.

I would plead for some calm, here. This is how bad feelings get started between members. One of the great things about this film site is that we, those of us who call ourselves members, are a group interested in discussing the various aspects of films and filmmakers. I admire each and every one of you or I would not return to site looking for validation. The contributors to this site are educated in the arts, the sciences, and many of us continue to work in those fields. So please, do not throw confrontations about as if we were at war with ourselves (which we are not!).

I would remind you of the words by H. L. Menken:

"Imagine the creator as a stand up comedian and at once the world becomes explicable."



You both have valid points of view that belong in a different forum.

[Johann]

Yep, we've gone over this territory before.
And you still aren't listening.


Loony? Conspiracy theory?
That's just what I'd expect from a Bush-fluffer like you.

Connect the dots.
Why can't you look past Saddam?
Why can't you see that Bush ain't there to bring peace?
What mysterious magic potion is preventing you from seeing what is really going on?

You say I have no proof.

No WMD's is proof.
Bush's father is proof.
The cost of a barrel of oil is proof.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is devastating proof.
Bush's behavior, speeches and actions have been ample proof.

Anything there that satiates your bizarre thinktank mind?

Hypothetical: I could present you with an audio recording (a la Watergate) that would devastate all your claims, but you'd find some way to dismiss it or ignore it or twist it to make me seem like I'm "loony" or on a conspiracy witchhunt.

I surmise there's nothing under God's blue sky that would convince you or even make you think for more than ten seconds that Bush is corrupt and that this war is all about oil.


Unfortunately, sadly, regrettably.

[Johann]

I plead for calm & peace as well.

But remember: we must live with war.
Here, there, and everywhere.

Good thing my army of one is superior...

[tabuno]

stevetseitz: This people of our world are perhaps a century or two away from being on the same page. The united force will be democratic capitalism.

tabuno: I am intriqued by the notion that our world is a century or two from being on a the same page as this idea in my mind is an astute and foward thinking expectation of the future. In the short term, however, I believe that capitalism is fraught with dangerous and negative consequences that promotes competition and greed, encourages profits and division among people, and it allows for inordinate, inequitable distortion of wealth between the rich and the poor. One way to ensure that capitalism doesn't tear society apart is intervention and oversight based in part on an enlightend democratically elected government. Today Americans are too ill-informed, general lazy in regards to the public interest to make good consumer decisions that allows them to become pawns of corporate greed. Yet I would still agree with steveseitz comments with the above understanding.

[stevetseitz]

>>No WMD's is proof.<<

Clandestine WMD programs are proof of a threat. State sponsorship of terror has been proven. If you can't connect those dots Johann. I can't help you.


>>Bush's father is proof.<<

Of what exactly?

>>The cost of a barrel of oil is proof.<<

And, how praytell does that help Bush? Cheap, abundant oil would help Bush far more than expensive oil. Bush could have played ball with Saddam like Germany, France and Russia and cut under the table deals in the U.N. "Oil for food" program. If he had done so the last election would have been an utter landslide. Instead, Bush made the hard and sometimes unpopular decision to deal with what he saw as a problem (state sponsorship of terrorism) instead of bequeathing it to his successor.

If Bush had taken the easy way out more innocents would have died in Iraqi mass graves and terrorists would continue to receive training, intelligence, weapons, medical treatment and logistical support at the whim of Saddam Hussein.


>>Fahrenheit 9/11 is devastating proof.<<

Please. It's been de-bunked so many times that it couldn't even be considered a DOCUMENTARY!!!




Tabuno: You are quite correct that capitalism is not without it's flaws, but that's what makes it perfect for us as flawed humans. It's a system that works with human nature instead of a retread of a failed collectivist concept.

The battle cry of the anti-capitalist has always been to lament the "gap" between the rich and the poor.

I say the "gap" is good. I say celebrate the "gap". Here is why:

In any society, from a laissez faire capitalist paradise to a strict communist totalitarian economy, there will always be someone (probably many) with absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. For whatever reason, be it gambling, drugs, bad luck, lack of ambition, whatever.

So, the wealth of the poorest citizen remains a constant. The richest citizens, the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Waltons, Gates, etc. keep getting richer.

All the "gap" really tells us is how wealthy a society is. If the gap isn't widening it is then that we need to start worrying.

>>One way to ensure that capitalism doesn't tear society apart is intervention and oversight based in part on an enlightend democratically elected government.<<

True and if we ever apply the same basic economic principles to our education system that work in every other industry (i.e. performance based pay) , Americans could be the brightest, most active and informed citizens in the history of the world. But that's a subject for another post! :)

[tabuno]

stevetseitz: "All the "gap" really tells us is how wealthy a society is. If the gap isn't widening it is then that we need to start worrying."

tabuno: My hypothesis is that there comes a point in any society that a large enough gap between the rich and poor, especially without much of a middle class, that that society will crumble and destroy itself through civil war or revolution when the majority of the people become so impoverished and upset at the rich, elite class that they denounce the economic system, loose trust in their government to provide a fair and equitable society, where the rich become powerful and use the system to their own benefit and where democracy becomes not a society based on people votes but on money votes. A rich/poor society inevitably becomes a democracy in name only where the people don't govern, but just a singular class of people, those who control the economic power of a country, the media, and eventually the government itself, not for the people but for themselves. I'm worried that America is beginning to show evidence of this decline and division that could threaten to tear our country apart. The final war against America may come not from the outside but from the inside.

[Johann]

Clandestine WMD programs are proof of a possible threat.
Did the U.S. prove beyond any doubt that they were there?

NO.

I say again: NO. No weapons. No weapons? No threat. Simple as that.

You don't go to war on perpetual weapons or perpetual threats.
History will show you to be irresponsible. (especially this war- the death toll and financial cost is far too high).

Read Gore Vidal's PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE.
He'll set you straight.


Are you aware that the Bush family are oil barons?

Do you purposefully avoid that fact? Are you ignoring the fact that the Bushes are a business-based family? They have been for many many moons.

How difficult is it for you draw the connection between what their stock in trade is and this war?

How difficult, Steve?

Think about it for a while (I know it's hard for you- you work for homeland security- they sign your cheques).
Do some ruminating on the possibility that Bush isn't the "tough on terrorism" dude he proclaims to be. (After all, members of his administration ignored terror threats and downplyed the idea that they would be attacked).

Think about that for a while, while I scrape some resin out of my bong.

[stevetseitz]

Tabuno: I feel the "gap" is a straw man. It depends on how MANY poor you are talking about. It's important to remember that even the "poor" in the western world enjoy the highest standard of living ever seen on the planet. The luxuries we take for granted are constantly being replaced by new innovation advertised to us via every media outlet. Many of the poor are poor only by comparison to the super rich. It's important to remember that there are more millionaires than homeless people in this country.


Johann: >>Clandestine WMD programs are proof of a possible threat.
Did the U.S. prove beyond any doubt that they were there?

NO.<<

Read David Kay's report to Congress. In it he details his findings about DOZENS of clandestine WMD programs in Iraq. Republicans say that Saddam with WMD destruction is too great a threat to allow. Democrats suddenly demand to see stockpiles of WMD. It's a classic logical fallacy. You argue against a totally different point.



I say again: NO. No weapons. No weapons? No threat. Simple as that.<<

Nope. Not that simple at all. By the time there ARE weapons, it's too late and young Muslim men are walking into New York, Los Angeles and Vancouver, B.C. populated areas with dirty bombs in their backpacks.



>>Are you aware that the Bush family are oil barons?

Do you purposefully avoid that fact? Are you ignoring the fact that the Bushes are a business-based family? They have been for many many moons.<<

What does that even mean? Business-based?!? Does that mean they don't make their living by harvesting organically grown crops and selling them at the farmer's market? Every politician has financial backing including Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards. If you can show how Bush has benefitted one iota because of the war in Iraq please do so, otherwise you are simply trying to use the appearance of impropriety to do your debating for you.

[Johann]

Kay's report is just that: a report.

These geniuses decided that it was enough to go to war.
Sorry, I don't buy it or endorse it.
There is little Bush and co. have done to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this situation required bombs, death and destruction.


Whether Saddam was "making" or "planning to make" weapons the fact remains that you do not arbitrarily drop bombs and invade with your green machine unless you are fully justified.
God, I sound like a fucking broken record here..

Pre-emptive strikes are cowardly. COWARDLY. And in this case it's shown Bush to be a callous ignoramus- look at what Rummy said when his own troops asked why they have to scrounge for armour:

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" Thanks Don!

It's nice to know that your #1 defence leader/rep cares about your well-being. Go scrounge some more, you cannon fodder, you!

Their actions toward troops is appalling. Cutting veteran benefits? They should be beheaded on the white house lawn!
A soldier puts his life on the line for you and then you take away his rights? It's even more appaling when you consider Bush deserted the Air National Guard. A deserter has control over so much!

Business based means business-based. They are a business-based family. Have been for eons. Oil is the business- it's quite lucrative in case you didn't know.

You're talking out your ass if you think they have no interest in oil.
Of course they will never in a millin years admit what they're doing, but they give us enough clues and circumstantial evidence to safely come to the conclusion that they are in neck-deep in the oil game- THE GLOBAL OIL GAME.

I have no proof *de facto* because they are so adept at covering up and lying and sneaking and hiding.

Can I get a Hell Yeah?

[tabuno]

stevetseitz: I feel the "gap" is a straw man. It depends on how MANY poor you are talking about. It's important to remember that even the "poor" in the western world enjoy the highest standard of living ever seen on the planet. The luxuries we take for granted are constantly being replaced by new innovation advertised to us via every media outlet. Many of the poor are poor only by comparison to the super rich. It's important to remember that there are more millionaires than homeless people in this country.

tabuno: Working with the poor as a social worker in the United States, I get to experience the devastation and the ruin to families and their children. Actually, the opposite is true - what is poor in other countries is a travesty and a horror almost to great to imagine and to think that the United States is spending $87 billion for freedom while the starvation and misery of hundreds of millions around the world goes unheard. The comparison to the very poor is a straw man actually because the very poor are beyond starvation, it is about literally dying. The poor in America however, are still in desparate need as drug addiction, domestic violence, unemployment is eating away at the soul of the American poor and beginning to creep up into the middle class while the rich become users and takens oblivious to the waste and dispair around them.

[stevetseitz]

>>Kay's report is just that: a report.<<

Kay was sent in to find facts and gather evidence regarding Iraq's capabilities

>>These geniuses decided that it was enough to go to war.<<

Uhhh, It was AFTER the war.


>>Sorry, I don't buy it or endorse it.<<

Who cares what you buy or endorse? Kay was recognized as a unbiased and reliable source of information by both sides of the political spectrum. His report includes the following:

"From birth, all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;

2. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;

3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;

4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;

5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;

6. The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

· A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

· Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

· Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."



>>Whether Saddam was "making" or "planning to make" weapons the fact remains that you do not arbitrarily drop bombs and invade with your green machine unless you are fully justified.<<

And just what, in your mind, is justification for taking military action and toppling a regime that sponsors terror. How many innocent lives must be lost to terrorism before President Johann decides to say, "You know what? It's time we make the tough decision and deal with this problem."

Or would you just ignore it and wait for another 9/11 or more London bombings in major western cities?


>>Pre-emptive strikes are cowardly. COWARDLY.<<

Destroying the capability of an enemy to harm you is basic strategy in any conflict. To NOT do so is idiotic. Is a Navy SEAL a coward when he throws a flash-bang into a room prior to entering and engaging a target? He has struck preemptively at the senses of his opponent, effectively neutralizing his ability to inflict harm.


>>Business based means business-based. They are a business-based family. Have been for eons. Oil is the business<<

And how exactly has Bush benefitted from the Iraq war?

>>I have no proof<<

Thank you.

>> *de facto* because they are so adept at covering up and lying and sneaking and hiding.<<

Hmmm, and here I thought you just called him a callous ignoramus...You can't have it both ways! Either he is a diabolical genius and master strategist who has the ability to fool every major media outlet and silence any opposition or he is a bumbling, moron, who couldn't devise a winning strategy to save his life.

Well? Which is it?

[Johann]

Uhhh- your factoids and BUSHit is giving me a massive migraine Steve-O

President Johann would train a small group of "assassins" to smoke Bush out of his ranch at 2am and put him on trial for


WAR CRIMES

[Johann]

Oh, and Steve- if Kay's report was after the war then that makes it even more suspect!

MORE SUSPECT


Down with the Fascist. Nazi. Imperialist. Conservative Christian. Right-wing Repulican. Straight White American Males.


BOO YAH GRANDMA

[Johann]

I love your "can't have it both ways" shit.

First, Bush is surrounded with people smarter than him, people who dress him in the morning, people who cut the crust off his favorite sandwiches for him and people who work feverishly hard to make sure his speeches make him look good. He is obviously not making every decision- he's clearly, positively, certainly a puppet.


Second, (in direct relation to the above) HE'S AN IDIOT.
He's illiterate. He can't speak in front of people. He smirks, which is evidence of him knowing he's full of shit. He knows that people with brains (everyone but him and his admin) know that he's a fucking retard.

Canadians aren't the only ones laughing at your President.
The world is.

You WANT him for your President?! You Re-Elected him?
What does that say about the U.S. of A?

"We Lack 'em Dumm" should be the new national anthem.

A horrifying war, driving your national deficit to record-breaking levels and ruining american politics are only a few of Bush's achievements. The list of his accomplishments is beyond shocking.
And the American people do nothing about it.

There should be a 200-million man march on Washington to throw that clown out of office. Break down the White House gates, go into YOUR HOME- The White House is YOURS America- you get in there and CLEAN FUCKING HOUSE.

[stevetseitz]

>>President Johann would train a small group of "assassins" to smoke Bush out of his ranch at 2am and put him on trial for


WAR CRIMES<<

It is asinine statements like these which destroy any credibility your side might have in this debate. If you disagree with policy, fine. Do so in a rational, logical manner and support your argument. So far all you have been able to do is stutter out "War is bad. " and "Oil!". You will have to do better. You haven't even adressed Iraq's state sponsorship of terror or the human rights conditions within the country under Saddam Hussein.


>>Oh, and Steve- if Kay's report was after the war then that makes it even more suspect!<<

Kay's report was from data collected by teams of agents sent to Iraq. If you seriously believe that Bush was able to alter the content of the report you are more loony than I previously gave you credit for. As far as I am concerned I hope you keep believing and parroting these laughable conspiracy theories, it undermines any meaningful impact you could have on political debate.


>>Down with the Fascist. Nazi. Imperialist. Conservative Christian. Right-wing Repulican. Straight White American Males.<<

Another idiotic statement that proves you know nothing about which you speak. Right wingers by definition cannot be either "nazi" nor "fascist".

Communism and fascism are merely kissing cousins of the LEFT. The appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism. The only substantial difference between the two is fascism's limited observance of private property rights, which is ostensible at best given its susceptibility to rigid government regulation. In 1933, the Hitler candidly admitted to Hermann Rauschning that: "the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx!" Nazism (a variant of fascism) is derivative of Marxism. The historical conflicts between communism and fascism were merely feuds between two socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously related forces.

SCHOOL IS OUT, SON.

>>HE'S AN IDIOT.<<

He got better grades at Yale than Al Gore and about the same as John Kerry. What Ivy league school did you attend? Or do you just claim to be all-knowing from the keyboard of your computer?

[Johann]

I'm not trumpeting my credibility.
I'm not running for office and I have no agendas to push.

I'm a talking head on a computer, one whose instincts and suspicions about Bush and his war are bang-on.
I'm on the outside looking in. (From another country).

I know what you REALLY hate Steve. It's not that I'm right, it's that I'm right and I am not an American.

Doesn't that just get your knickers in a knot?

Well schoolmastah, there's nothing you've taught me with your long boring factoids and hollow howling.



Ironic you tell me to connect the dots when you can't do it yourself.

The heavy artillery has been brought in:
Oliver Stone's next film will be the first on 9/11.

If Michael Moore can't shake up the American people enough to do something then maybe Stone will- JFK blew the lid off the Warren Commission report. That film got the government to release documents that would never have seen the light of day.

I think you love war Steve. Your posts on the subject have revealed a strange endorsement, almost like you wish you were good enough to actually be a soldier or someone like Patton.

There's nothing you can say or do to convince me that Bush is acting in anybody's interests but his own.

[stevetseitz]

>>I know what you REALLY hate Steve. It's not that I'm right, it's that I'm right and I am not an American.<<

I don't really care that you are not American. In fact, it would probably disturb me more if a real American were as unpatriotic, cynical, and gullible as you. It's curious that you bring this up...A psychologist might see your statement as something that reveals a national inferiority complex.


>>I think you love war Steve. Your posts on the subject have revealed a strange endorsement, almost like you wish you were good enough to actually be a soldier or someone like Patton.<<

Having served in the first Gulf War, I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth. But people familiar with the realities of the outside world, beyond the insulated world of Vancouver, B.C. realize that war is sometimes a necessary evil. Have you ever been to a foreign country? South of the equator? I'm not trying to be patronizing, I'm just curious what your life experience is.

[Johann]

Well, I was an Infantry Soldier for 5 years (1991-96) in the first Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Although I've never been overseas (in operations) I was ready to go in a line platoon at all times- we were scheduled to go to Haiti & Rwanda but we got stood down both times in order to allow the 2nd BN to go.

So I have a unique perspective on this whole thing, because if I had stayed in, I would have been in the exact same group that was bombed by your reservist hotshots in Afganistan- Marc Leger joined when I did, and we did a machine gun course together in 1995- I have pictures of him and I-he's dead now because of Bush. And I'm furious. He was a Sgt. That's what I'd be right now if I made the military my career.

I got wise along with 150 other guys when they moved the base in Calgary to Edmonton. A lotta guys' wives had great jobs- the commute was inconceivable.

anduril knows all this is true- so call him up if you want. You guys are buddies!

I'm so cynical you can't believe it. How can you not be? With the President, this war and these giant lies?

But you underestimate me if you think I'm gullible.

I probably love America more than most Americans.

Because of Jim Morrison I love America
Because of Hunter Thompson I love America.
Because of Martin Scorsese I love America
Because of Orson Welles, John Ford, Oliver Stone........ the list could go on for pages and pages and pages.


I'm more for America than you know.
I hate what is happening and has happened in the disgraced halls of Washington.

It speaks for everything horrible about the American character.

[Johann]

Bushie had a little Rove
His flesh was white as snow
Everywhere that Rovie went,
the SLIME was sure to flow

The case was made for war one day
And dissent would not be heard
Wilson made his case anyway
So Rovie spread the word

Bushie stood behind his Rove
And left McLellan to perspire
While Mehlman spewed out his best
To spare Rovie from the fire

The country stood by in disgust
and waited for the news
Yet all they heard were dishonest words
which Bushie ALWAYS spews

Bushie had a little Rove
who always managed to evade
but soon he'll be back to Texas,
WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE FUCKING STAYED!

[Johann]

Originally posted by tabuno
The final war against America may come not from the outside but from the inside.


Amen on that Tabuno.
The writing is certainly on the wall...

[tabuno]

CBS 48 Hours/Mystery bought a female sex slave for $1800 in Romania.

Instead of freeing Iraq for $87 billion, we could be buying and freeing at least 40,000,000 sex slaves around the world, including those in the United States, without our American soldiers dying.

[stevetseitz]

>>he's dead now because of Bush.<<

That's not true and you know it. Everyone who has seen action has issues with losing people they know and love. People die because choppers crash, missiles explode, bullets fly, etc. To try and place the blame on the Commander in Chief is specious at best.

Every person I know who was in the military (or still is in) is a huge Bush supporter.

[stevetseitz]

Tabuno:

Even I have my limits...I think 40,000,000 sex slaves would be pushing it. ;)

[tabuno]

I agree with stevetseitz about my number of 47,000,000 sex slaves. What the television report talked about wasn't the number of actual slaves. The number I came up with is the number of sex slaves if they existed that could perhaps be bought with the financial resources the United States is putting into Iraq. I would ponder the question is regards to deciding between freeing (whatever one means by this term) Iraqis and sex slaves. I wonder which might be considered more important.

[cinemabon]

I have offically renamed this thread: "The War of the Words."

... and stop all this "sex slave" talk... it's getting so a late night surfer can't be tempted even on his favorite film site!

[Johann]

This is the best piece of writing on Bush I think I've ever read.
It's by E.L. Doctorow:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3443

[stevetseitz]

Johann:

You are seriously missing the point. You can criticize Bush all you want. The left often needs PEOPLE it can attack because it cannot debate on principle.

The enemy that we face today is faceless and anonymous. Until they strike they are almost always unknown. The only way to defeat terrorism is to create an atmosphere where it cannot thrive.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians and non-combatants to create fear and attempt to bring about political change.

State sponsorship of terrorism is refuge, training, weapons, logistical support or intelligence provided by a government to terrorists. It is a fact that Iraq provided some if not all of these to members of al-Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Ever since Operation Iraqi Freedom we have seen a change in attitudes in the Middle East. Many leaders have softened their pro-terrorism stance. We are even getting cooperation from regimes that have been previously opposed to dealing with Islamic terror.

If there is one thing that politicians like it is power and watching Saddam Hussein lose his because of terror ties was very influential to leaders in the region.

If terrorists have no state sponsorship it limits their ability to strike effectively. If they have no refuge they cannot plan and train they must hide. If they have no intelligence and logistical support they are at a great disadvantage when it comes evading authorities.

Even the recent terror attacks in London appear to have been carried out by Brits. So it's not a case of foreign nationals sneaking into a country to attack it.

If you look at the big picture, Operation Iraqi Freedom not only freed tens of millions from an opressive and murderous regime it changed the entire landscape of the Middle East.

[tabuno]

It's interesting to learn a bit about the background and beliefs of board members, but perhaps this website could use a separate forum for indirect discussions not pertaining to film that were however grown out of film. The power of film to create a far-reaching discussion of important issue just goes to reveal how vital and essential film making really is.

[Johann]

I'm not missing any fucking points Steve.


People to attack? What glue are you sniffing?

Bush is attacked by the left and even the right from time to time because his "style" as President was and is destroying life and liberty.

This is about going to war for phony, fictitious and completely bogus reasons.

If you can't get it through your head that I'm not attacking Bush "for the hell of it" or "just for kicks", then I can't help you.

This man deserves severe scrutiny and severe punishment.
His actions have ruined lives, the U.S. economy and job market, the environment and just about everything else he's touched.



NEWSFLASH STEVE:

You can't fight terrorism.

I laugh so hard at you terrorism blowhards.
You actually believe that you can defeat terrorists.
"Unknown enemy" - exactly. They'll strike fear into the hearts of peace-loving, "normal" people at the most inopportune times.

If you get blown up on a bus by some goof with a backpack, what the fuck are you gonna do in response?
Go on national TV and say "We won't be bullied"?

A lotta good that'll do.

You can't defeat a terrorist. You can't "fight" them.

Do you realize how stupid Bush, Blair and all the other asswipes who claim to be righteous and free look when the say "Our resolve is stronger than your terror"?

People are still dead. People are still maimed and injured or getting cool in a morgue.

The terrorists won. What you do in response will just feed right into them. Especially in today's atmosphere. Attacks will continue to happen- expect them. You can't stop suicide bombers and you can't stop terrorists. You might get lucky and thwart some individuals from time to time with vigilant/alert security and police, but if the bad guy is smart, he'll get the job done.

Bush & Blair have done an outstanding job of making sure terrorism doesn't thrive, huh? You got a complete retard in charge. If I were you I'd be pretty worried about attacks happening again under this jerk's regime.

Read E.L. Doctorow's article I linked above. He's right on target with his assessment of Bush.


That war sure did change things in the middle east, but it ain't as rosy as you portray. Oppressive regime is over? Millions are free?
Yep, but they got no economy, no fuel, no food, no electricity, no fucking government, no decent health care, etc etc etc.

The way you write, you'd think Iraq was the best, most hope-filled Xanadu on Planet Earth.

Fuck Steve, have some empathy for the dead and all those who've suffered and still suffer before you praise this quagmire.

It's evil, it was orchestrated by THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, and I will run him down every chance I get because he's the most arrogant, psychopathic idiot who ever held that office.

He's abused his power, his position and has lied so much he should at the very least be impeached. He blocks, prevents and deflects. Everything is a political liability. He never apologizes or appears to answer to anybody, such is his arrogance.

As HST said:

I PISS DOWN HIS THROAT.

[stevetseitz]

>>You can't fight terrorism.<<

LOL! That's like saying you can't pick weeds in your garden.

Thank God a defeatist doom-and-gloom pessimist like you wasn't elected during this challenging period.

Of course you can fight terrorism. First, you find and destroy terrorists where ever they are. Second, you put economic and political pressure on countries that are state sponsors of terror. Lastly, you use all resources available to provide people with as much security as possible given the requirements of liberty.

You seem to be forgetting what terrorism is. It is the intentional targeting of civilians and non-combatants to create fear in order to cause political change. If you allow this fear to weaken your resolve, the act of terrorism has been successful. If you do the EXACT OPPOSITE politically of what the terrorists want, it means the act of terrorism has been an utter failure.

If the Extremist Islamists want theocratic regimes, we give them democracy (where Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis all have a voice)


>>You can't defeat a terrorist. You can't "fight" them.<<

Wrong on both counts. Do you have any IDEA of how many terrorist plots are stopped every year? Every month? Do you have any idea of how many are brough to justice?

Bush and Blair have done a fantastic job under adverse conditions and most of the free world backs them 100%. It is radical left-wing (such as yourself) that has become, in Stalin's words, the "useful idiots" of the terrorists. Terrorists love nothing more than to read weak, cynical and doom-and-gloom outlook towards the war on terror.

[Johann]

Blah blah blah


It doesn't matter how many attacks are prevented- it's the few that do happen that negate it all.

You can't fight terrorism. I'll say it a million times. As long as some group feels wronged or has some belief that runs counter to "the powers that be", you'll have terror.

The powers that be are not in a position to "wage war" or even contemplate defeating these "killers"- because they don't value life.

They got the edge there. It's sad but true. When you are staring at 50+ dead bodies or bloody bits of meat and bone, you are staring at a horrifying win for the terrorists.

They scored some dead. They achieved terror.

What have "the good guys" achieved? They've achieved giving forensics and the police overtime to clean up and INVESTIGATE.

The ball is in the terrorists' court BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN MURDERING AND FUCKING WITH THE POWERS THAT BE.


Honk on that, terrorism-boy.

[Johann]

Oh and by the way, my comments aren't "Doom and Gloom".

It's reality.

It's the times.

It's how it really is, not how it is in your or Bush's fantasies.

This "society" we live in is threatening it's own survival with chickenshit wars for oil, corporate greed, the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the staggering pollution we arrogant humans create.

We are doomed Steve. The writing's on the wall.
You are living at a lower standard of living than your parents did.
You are paying the hard way for the sins of your government.
You might not see it/ feel it- you work for the machine- but I can guarantee Joe Bloggins in Butt-Fuck Montana feels it when he thinks his only option for success is going to the local recruiting station and signing up becuase they are throwing money at potential recruits.

I'm not naive enough to say it's only the poor who feel the stranglehold, but they feel it the fastest and with the least amount of sympathy from "THEIR GOVERNMENT".

You like to wrap things up with a beautiful bow Steve.
How about getting with the program and call a spade a spade.

As things stand right now, you're nothing but a heartless war blowhard to me.

[stevetseitz]

>>It doesn't matter how many attacks are prevented- it's the few that do happen that negate it all.<<

WRONG. It does matter and each time terrorists fail innocent lives are saved. Each attack that does get through is less and less effective.

>>You can't fight terrorism. I'll say it a million times. As long as some group feels wronged or has some belief that runs counter to "the powers that be", you'll have terror.<<

Duh, that's why you create and environment where everyone is the "powers that be" i.e. democracy. Put people in charge of their own destinies and hold them accountable and human nature will amaze you.

>>The powers that be are not in a position to "wage war" or even contemplate defeating these "killers"- because they don't value life.

They got the edge there. It's sad but true. When you are staring at 50+ dead bodies or bloody bits of meat and bone, you are staring at a horrifying win for the terrorists.

They scored some dead. They achieved terror.<<

Only against the weak minded. Fortunately, we have leaders who won't be cowed by terrorism and, in fact, respond with exactly the opposite of what terrorists want. It proves terrorism is a losing fight. People simply won't stand for it.


>>Oh and by the way, my comments aren't "Doom and Gloom".<<

Sure they are, chicken little. Honest assessment time:

I used to know plenty of people like you: so paralyzed by cynicism and pessimism that they allow it to be an excuse to do nothing. It's a convenient position that allows you to rationalize your own meaningless life. You only have one shot at this, so don't screw it up.



>>This "society" we live in is threatening it's own survival with chickenshit wars for oil, corporate greed, the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the staggering pollution we arrogant humans create.<<

The widening "gap" is the ultimate leftist straw man argument it means nothing except that society is getting wealthier. We all take for granted things that only the wealthiest people could afford years ago. Refrigerators, cars, mobile phones, air conditioning, abundant and varied food options.


>>We are doomed Steve. The writing's on the wall.
You are living at a lower standard of living than your parents did.<<

Not even close. My parents were lucky to vacation in Hawaii, I can afford to live here. Cost of living on the islands is very high. The cost of living wouldn't even be an issue if we hadn't been moving towards a welfare state for 40 years before Reagan took office. The greatest expense as a percentage of income for Americans used to be: 1. House 2. Vehicle. Now with generation of people growing up as "second- handers" as Ayn Rand would call them, The single greatest expense we have is taxes. That is a huge shift and must be reversed.



>>As things stand right now, you're nothing but a heartless war blowhard to me.<<

Yeah it's easy to dismiss differing opinions like that...but in your heart you know it's false. No person, left-wing or right, desires or celebrates war. It's a horrible, brutal thing. I am in a position as a veteran to know this better than all the leftists sitting around the coffee shops of Vancouver reading the Communist manifesto. The fact is between war and totalitarianism, war is the lesser of the two evils. If you have two choices and both are bad and you must make a choice, it is no moral wrong to choose the lesser of two evils.

[Johann]

I'm not paralyzed by cynicism- I'm energized by it- it fuels my life choices.

We don't HAVE democracy, Einstein- we have nobody flying the plane. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll stop sounding like a man with all the answers.
You're delusional re: the leaders. They put on a brave face, "with great resolve who won't be cowed", but the truth is they're impotent ass-clowns with no means to protect us from terror.

They can't protect us anymore than you can steve, so spare me your limp-dicked summations of world leaders and their methods for protecting us peons.

They have dropped the ball everytime.
London? G-8 was on!

Security was supposed to be top-notch. "Extreme vigilance". It's G-8! The world is watching. But what happens? Innocent people bite the dust and then they wheel out surveillance camera shots of the guys who did it. That's the guy! The one with the backpack!
Send the photos to all the papers! The world has gotta know what those guys we missed look like!

Homeland security. Heh.
What a fucking joke.

An excuse to do nothing? I'm voicing my opinion- quite forcefully.

There's nothing I can do. I don't wanna be a soldier mama, I don't wanna be no politician. I don't wanna die for anyone- least of all a government that doesn't have a conscience or a clue on what horrors they endorse or perpetrate.

The gap means nothing more than society is getting wealthier?
Tell that to the people who live in the projects or the people who work 3 jobs just to make ends meet.
It means way more than just "bitches are getting rich".

It's far more reaching than that, and your sickening writing off of such important matters that affect so many is just one more example of your lack of humanity or compassion.

You sicken me with your reasoning because it fails to take into account so much, so many things that you can't comprehend let alone feel for.

You are like a machine steve: cold, unfeeling, no conscience.

I've figured you out: you talk tough, but you ain't got cajones to admit that the "powers that be" have failed miserably and have set us on a course for social, economic and national disaster.

It's just a mater of time.

I've said just about all I can say on the subject. Your provocations are boring me- I'm getting tired of being your muse for antithetical rants. You're not my match in a word war.

I said I'm gonna stop with the politics and I will.

School ain't out son- IT'S JUST BEGUN. All you gotta do is re-read my posts over and over and over and over.
Eventually you'll learn Charlie Brown...
Let's hope it's before the Great Civil War of 20??

[stevetseitz]

>>I'm not paralyzed by cynicism- I'm energized by it- it fuels my life choices.<<

That's very telling. You should examine that statement and decide if that is how you want to be. It's a road to confusion and impotence.


>>An excuse to do nothing? I'm voicing my opinion- quite forcefully.<<

Wow. Excuse me if I'm not that impressed. DO SOMETHING. If terrorism so effective...some undefeatable force... why haven't you become one yourself? Why aren't you fighting for what you believe in with more than words. At least the terrorists do more than simply "voice their opinion". I have little respect for those who don't walk the walk.



>>There's nothing I can do. I don't wanna be a soldier mama, I don't wanna be no politician.<<

>> I don't wanna die for anyone<<

"Every man dies not every man really lives."

-Braveheart

I don't want to end my life either, but there are many things and people for which I would gladly lay down my life and many times when I risked just that. Better to die for something than for nothing.


>>The gap means nothing more than society is getting wealthier?<<

Yep. In every society there are always those who have nothing. It could be Marx's communist dream world or a laizzez faire capitalist society, it doesn't matter. There will always be someone with nothing. This could be to poor choices, laziness, bad luck, whatever. So the so-called "gap" merely measures the difference between 0 and whatever the wealthiest person has.


>>It's far more reaching than that, and your sickening writing off of such important matters that affect so many is just one more example of your lack of humanity or compassion.<<

It never fails. Argue with a leftists and they will always accuse you of "being mean-spirited". You know what? Get off your high-horse. It makes me laugh. It's like listening to a celebrity get up onstage at an award show and rail against "Hate."

>>You sicken me with your reasoning because it fails to take into account so much, so many things that you can't comprehend let alone feel for.<<

Did you ever stop to think that I "feel" for others too? I simply have a different and more practical response to those feelings. You wear your heart on your sleeve and that is admirable, but doesn't help solve the problem. My life's work is to figure out a better way. So far, there is no better option that giving every individual in the world a stake in their own future. The way to do that is democratic capitalism.

>>You are like a machine steve: cold, unfeeling, no conscience.<<

I'm also made of liquid metal.

[Johann]

Do I want to be cynical? Fuck no.

But because I have inteligence and because I actually THINK about these things on a regular basis, cynicism is my closest friend.

Why have you been psycho-analyzing me steve?
Why have you been trying to punch holes in my credibility?

I'm not a high-profile politician. I'm not in the public eye. Yeah, this website is public, but it's all discussion. This ain't the best platform for this type of discussion- we end up looking like Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.


You work for Homeland Security- you take all this personally.
You can't stand having an outsider take big swings with his huge Tom Bunyan axe at the base of your big U.S. oak tree of "democracy". It ain't democracy, doofus. It's HYPOCRACY.

I had an in-depth conversation with a Palestinian friend of mine the other day about all things "middle east". I said "So, is the U.S. in Iraq for oil?" He looked at me like I was a ten-headed hydra. He went on to explain in very convincing terms what the situation is over there. He slammed all of the leaders in the middle east for allowing the U.S. to do what it wants. "Nobody stopped them. If all of the leaders would make a pact against the U.S., the U.S. would have to leave. But they won't. They allow them to be there, and I fault all of the surrounding countries just as much as the U.S. itself. Saddam Hussein? Fuck Saddam Hussein. You know what most middle easterners think of saddam? Here was a man who could have had one of the most powerful countries on earth. But he decided to have his own mafia, his own evil gang, and started ripping off his people any way he could. That is what was wrong with Saddam- he turned on his own people when they believed in him so much- fuck him.

I asked him about Iraq being number 2 in the world for oil reserves.

Again he looked at me weird: IRAQ IS NUMBER ONE. NUMBER ONE! I said "really?". "Yes!- Saudi Arabia consumes so much oil that there is no way that they are number one anymore. Iraq hasn't been able to export or trade in oil for over 2 years- that oil is there for the taking. And they are taking it: have you heard of Halliburton?"

So call me crazy, but I believe my Palistinian friend. Who, by the way is a refugee here in Canada because he was treated so badly by the U.S. government after 9/11 (he went to a school in Texas for 2 years)- he was detained and made fun of and suspected of being a terrorist 4 times at airports. When he was just a regular guy, trying to make it in "the land of opportunity".
He says 9/11 ruined life in America for middle easterners who immigrated. Now he's got a great job in Canada, living free, HAPPY and free, free to talk about this type of shit without some army monkey forcing him to the ground and assuming he's Osama.


My comments are straight from the street, Steve-O.

I'm just a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger, a man on the move, and just sick enough to be
TOTALLY. CONFIDENT.

[Johann]

Bill Maher's got a DVD called BE MORE CYNICAL.
Watch it Steve- you'll learn a lot.

I hate to tell you this, but if you aren't cynical in today's world then you are on the course to confusion and impotence.

You accept Bush's reasons for war- that makes you just as psycho as he is. Anyone who supports this dumb fucker has got their head up their ass. Come up out of your bunker steve.
Come up to the surface, like THX-1138 did.


Live among the real people, not within the chilly titanium walls of ignorance and cruelty.


Dare to challenge your leaders. Dare to question their motives.
Don't keep humping your George Bush blow-up doll and think he's gonna love you for it. You're just another sweatshop worker
cranking out ten-cent t-shirts that sell for 100 bucks at the Gap.

You are just another cog.

Me, on the other hand, I've struck out as my own man, kinda like Jim in way, devouring art, because I actually feel the world dying.
I want to savour music, film, literature before I see it all go up in a mushroom cloud and we're back to buying bread with a whellbarrow full of cash like they did in the depression.

I don't want to be sitting in the middle of nuclear fall-out saying "if I knew this was gonna happen I would have gone to more films and drank more wine & enjoyed life more."

So that's what I'm doing. I'm gonna enjoy life fuckhead- that's how I walk the walk. Because I'm smart enough to know that "joining the fight" is fucking lame. Because I'm smart enough to know that it could all end, at any time.

Because I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

I already did my part- I was a soldier. no one can take that away from me. I earned my cap-badge. And my government let me down.

They only got one chance with me.
I was gung-ho, ready to die for my country at one point. But it was all for an illusion. All for nothing.

I know that Steve.
Your government must love you: you polish it's huge shiny knob with your mouth like you'll never get the chance in your life again.

And maybe you won't.

[stevetseitz]

>>Do I want to be cynical? Fuck no.

But because I have inteligence and because I actually THINK about these things on a regular basis, cynicism is my closest friend.<<

It's far better to be practical than cynical. You will find more solutions trying to deal with the world as it actually is rather than simply criticizing it's nature. If cynicism is the belief that people are motivated by selfish and base concerns, then cynicism itself must be the most selfish and basest of philosophies. After all, even a cynic is part of the very world he or she lives in.
Cynicism is a cop-out, because it allows you to feign outrage while you actually do NOTHING about what you are supposedly outraged about. If you see a problem, fix it. Don't just be a smug prick about the problems that you see. Unless you haven't the courage...

To look at it from another angle, a cynic who wanted to make a difference would try to devise a system of governing and an economy that makes use of people's "base and selfish" nature.


>>You work for Homeland Security- you take all this personally.
You can't stand having an outsider take big swings with his huge Tom Bunyan axe at the base of your big U.S. oak tree of "democracy". It ain't democracy, doofus. It's HYPOCRACY.<<

O.K. Jesse Jackson, nice rhyme. Isn't it Paul Bunyan (and babe the blue ox) man you really are from Canada ain't you?

A democracy works like this, if a majority of Americans disagreed with President Bush and his policies they would simply have elected another leader. If they were so fed up with a political party, they would have voted a different way.

Asking a "Palestinian" about the Middle East is your first mistake, first of all there is no nation called Palestine. It's a region. Do you know anything about the six day war? Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and incidentally troops from Iraq were also provided. Israel. beat their combined forces in six-day. Egyptian tanks wore out their reverse gear they were retreating so fast. By the end of the conflict Israel had effective military control over the region all the way to Sinai. U.N. Resolution 242 established a formula for Israel to safely withdraw it's troops in exchange for peace with it's neighbors. The so-called Palestinians are either Jordanians, Egyptians, or Syrians would chose to remain refugees instead of returning to the safety of their native country. So...is your buddy an Egyptian, a Jordanian, or a Syrian?



>>Iraq hasn't been able to export or trade in oil for over 2 years- that oil is there for the taking. And they are taking it: have you heard of Halliburton?"<<

Halliburton is the world's largest gas and oil field services company, they don't sell oil. They are also American owned. Can you name another gas and oil field services company that has the infrastructure large enough to handle the Iraq job?

Didn't think so. Halliburton conspiracy debunked.

>>Bill Maher's got a DVD called BE MORE CYNICAL.
Watch it Steve- you'll learn a lot.<<

Bill Maher is sputtering retard. Unless he has surrounded himself with idiotic celebrities and sycophants he can't even make a point in a debate. Ever see Ken Hamblin reduce Maher to tears on his old show, "Politically Incorrect"?



>>You are just another cog.<<

We all play our roles. Yours is the more pathetic, methinks. You really believe you are "being a rebel" and "sticking it to the man". You are a sad, laughable cliche. Instead of substance you have chosen symbolism.

>>devouring art, because I actually feel the world dying.<<

Ohhh, how brave. and when you are 80 and the world is still chugging along will you regret being an apathetic loser? A disenfranchised cynic? Will you swallow your own gun barrel like Hunter Thompson? Will you even merit an obituary in the local newspaper. Will your life have meant anything?


>>So that's what I'm doing. I'm gonna enjoy life fuckhead<<

Doesn't sound like you enjoy much at all unless your brain is addled by mood- altering substances. How could you? You walk around with the coming apocalypse on your mind all the time like some cold-war junkie who can't transition back into real life.

>>- that's how I walk the walk. Because I'm smart enough to know that "joining the fight" is fucking lame. Because I'm smart enough to know that it could all end, at any time.<<

Come on, you were that kid who wore the trenchcoat to school weren't you?

If my debate style became more adversarial at the end of the message, it's simply due to fatigue and irritability.

Keep watching movies and enjoying them. I think most of the posters agree that we enjoy reading your take on the various films we all see even if we don't agree with everything you post.

This will be my last post on this thread because I'm sure the only ones reading it are you and I and you are the only one who cares about this debate at this point.

I can agree to disagree and move on with my life. While I find your attitude disturbing and your grasp of history and current events to be twisted, it's only because...as a young man...I have been there, my friend. I have been fed up, sick of the crap, disillusioned, etc. I turned my back on all that I once held dear. I got to a point where I was as cynical as you are now. Knowledge is but the beginning of wisdom, not it's end.

Don't think for a minute that just because I disagree with you means I think you aren't smart. I would hope you wouldn't dismiss other people with opposing views in this all-to-convenient fashion either.



Some of the best debates are between smart people. Who knows, I may actually take some of the "slings and arrows" that have come my way and use them against those further to the right than myself (gasp! are there such people? )

[Johann]

I'm here for movies. Not for politics.

I am man enough to admit you have a scathing intelligence.
(but you use it in very underhanded ways, MEthinks).


There's no doubting your invested interest in what you talk about. I always know you are "prepared".



This site has had WAY too much political flavor. It's tainted the paramount movie aspect, which is why we're all here.

We know where we stand, fucking move on...

[trevor826]

Quick comment about "War of the Worlds" the movie.

Typical summer blockbuster that quickly erases some of the strong key elements from the book and 50's film version, e.g one of the first buildings ripped asunder is a church!

formula, formula, formula, dysfunctional divorced parents, obnoxious teen who suddenly becomes a revenge driven heroic machine, dozens of close shaves and near misses and an ending so abrupt it made "Jurassic Park 3's" finale look like "The Return of the King". Couple of nice points, some of the camera work and Tim Robbins (pretty damn scary) performance. Bad points, it may be me but I find Tom Cruise's acting fails to convince, he's no single dad struggling to communicate with his part time kids, he's Tom Cruise playing a single etc.
The design of the aliens was horrendous, they looked liked lumps of greyish snot, not some form of intelligent life.

Anyway, a typical no brainer summer blockbuster, if that's your requirement then this fits the bill quite ably.

Cheers Trev

[tabuno]

Trev826 says in plain, easy to read language the summary essence of this updated version of War of the Worlds that reflects a vivid and well perceived experience of this movie. I'm curious with the ending as it compares with the original movie version - they both seemed to have the same sudden climatic revelation.

[trevor826]

It wasn't the speed of the death of the aliens that bothered me but the suddeness of Cruise with daughter in tow arriving in Boston to witness the destruction of the aliens just before meeting up with his pregnant but totally unharmed ex, her old but perfectly happy and healthy parents, her new guy again in mint condition lurking in the background and of course his cherished son whom he'd given up for dead suddenly springing back to life, the house was completely untouched as well.

Now if it had been set in England I'm sure they would have at least invited him in for a nice cup of tea and some cucumber sandwiches for bringing the girl back safely. lol

Cheers Trev.

[wpqx]

I didn't hate it, but it is forumlaic, and the ending wasn't necessarily bad as much as it was Spielberg. I mean I didn't expect anything different from him, did you? I do however appreciate the more apocalyptic sci-fi endings like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (now there's a great fucking movie). It was fluff, well crafted fluff, and honestly I personally wanted to see the teenage son get killed, because he's a dopey looking hippie who needs to get a hair cut.

[Johann]

Steve: now that I've got you reading Gore Vidal, don't forget to read his intellectually supreme Blood for Oil.

That book will destroy, obliterate, and annihillate everything you believe about Bush, his evil war and what America is doing.

The immortal literature God Gore Vidal tells it straight up, with no spins, no rhetoric and no B.S.

If you think I've been ineffective in debating you then please read these books and substitute what I've said for his words.
That man speaks for me more than any other living human being today. He's a true WRITER. His elegance and ethereal truth blind me.

He is a very different animal than HST (who may be too "rebellious" and "blistering" to take) but they got one thing in common: they both know that the Bush family (which includes Dickhead Cheney and Donald Duck Rumsfeld) are repugnant aliens who are nothing more than giant festering boils on the ass of humanity. Boils that need to be lanced, drained and forgotten so that the world can start healing.

[tabuno]

Trev826: "It wasn't the speed of the death of the aliens that bothered me but the suddeness of Cruise with daughter in tow arriving in Boston to witness the destruction of the aliens just before meeting up with his pregnant but totally unharmed ex, her old but perfectly happy and healthy parents, her new guy again in mint condition lurking in the background and of course his cherished son whom he'd given up for dead suddenly springing back to life, the house was completely untouched as well.

Now if it had been set in England I'm sure they would have at least invited him in for a nice cup of tea and some cucumber sandwiches for bringing the girl back safely. lol"

tabuno: Now Trev826's commentary hits just the right amount of content and reasoned explanation for his opinion of the ending. You hit on the same feelings and are able to describe it in better detail with a dash of humor. Good job!


wpqx: "I didn't hate it, but it is forumlaic, and the ending wasn't necessarily bad as much as it was Spielberg. I mean I didn't expect anything different from him, did you?"

tabuno: The ending was pretty lame (just re-read Trevor826's description again) and when compared to Spielberg's ability to push audience buttons as in "Saving Private Ryan," and "AI," I did expect something different and more from him.