Author Topic: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick  (Read 24998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2003, 05:12:26 PM »
0
I still don't think it is really the third act because all through out the second act, you get different scenes and the relations of them to each other don't really flow and thats the same with the introduction to the sniper scene, so since it follows how every scene already takes place in the second act, I can't see it how it clearly definable as a third act. The idea that it is the one that takes action and thats what makes it distinguishable is an interesting one, but I still don't agree because with the flow of dialogue and ideas through out the second one, it is evident Joker has met war and is still snubbing the idea of it being brutal and it is acting like a lead in to this point. I think a lot of the ideas are ideas that are lead in for what is discovered with the first killing by joker. The second act basically takes on a similair idea and the killing is the finishing off of the final irony.

I agree it was emotional, but not as effective as previous movies. One scene in a movie that as a younger person always to watch was the scene in Apocalyse Now where the boat stops a smaller boat with a family transporting food and a child runs to get something and is instantly killed by soldiers when it was found he was trying to just get his dog. That for me, was shocking and hard to face and even still watch to this day. A mercy kill on a soldier, albeit a female one, who is near death anyways, seems less severe so in weighing this movie with others similiar in story and seeing greater impact, I would have rather something else more shocking and off putting.

Also, that question brings up one of the original points i made where I always felt it was harder to feel Kubrick's movies over others. In all his movies, his shooting is always completely controlled to a point you know what to expect in way of him shooting and know his camera movement will never change drastically. In Apocalypse Now, as with much of the 70s independent film movement, there seemed a freedom in camera movement and observing a more realistic reality. I think with Kubrick still recreating worlds, like he did on FMJ, there is less an impact on us believing we are in Vietnam. I don't know if anyone else felt this, but I knew of how Kubrick used a destroyed construction site in london to recreate Vietnam and can't help but just think of this instead of thinking of Vietnam itself. Knowing that made it harder for me to realize the set as actually being Vietnam. It just felt like a destroyed construction site that had some minor things (graffiti art, posters, and trees) added to make it seem like Vietnam when other movies where showing the real thing that was putting this to shame in a lot of ways.

~rougerum

~rougerum

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10898
  • Respect: +1310
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2003, 07:28:40 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
so since it follows how every scene already takes place in the second act, I can't see it how it clearly definable as a third act.


I think this "act" argument is getting ridiculous. I see that one scene as a third of the movie, and you see it as yet another incoherent disjointed part of the second act. How more subjective can we get?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
A mercy kill on a soldier, albeit a female one, who is near death anyways, seems less severe so in weighing this movie with others similiar in story and seeing greater impact, I would have rather something else more shocking and off putting.


I don't think the real impact comes from the killing, and I think you might be looking for "the horror" in the wrong place. I see it in Joker's face, not in the sniper's face. I see it in the agonizing stupidity of the soldiers running in one by one to get killed, not necessarily the "horror" of the threat they're facing. One of the great agonies of that scene is that the soldiers might know they're going to getting picked off one by one, but they're doing what they've been trained to do, and they can't do anything else.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
observing a more realistic reality


That's an absurd desire, especially if you claim to like surrealist filmmakers like Kubrick. You can look for "realism" again and again, but when you're there, how will you know it?


Oh, by the way GT, wanna have another political debate? We could turn this tennis match into bare knuckle boxing.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2003, 08:14:10 PM »
0
I'll agree on the first one there. enough of it.

I always thought the scene of them running in one by one and getting picked off was because they had no clue what to do. It seemed all of them were in a situation of being faced with combat, and just panicked because they never met that situation yet in Vietnam and so just acted with all they did know. Maybe it is what you are saying in just different words. My whole problem with the entire scene and it being threatening is that it never really seems to liberate itself on anything being possible. I'll make reference to another movie with different intentions, but Saving Private Ryan during the battle scenes had that manic feeling of anything being able to happen and there was more of a feeling that anyone could be killed within that mess. I think Kubrick's problem with the last threat is that the threat seems as controlled as any camera movement or type of acting by the actors during the rest of the movie. I'm not necessarily looking for just more realistic, but something more reflecting of the idea of the mess that was attributed to the Vietnam war itself. I wanted a scene that was better handled and better aimed at feeling more threatening because I felt very little as I saw a bunch of guys completely scared by one person killing them off one by one as they walked up. Simple logic would show they go completely around the other side to corner the sniper (which they did) so it seemed like an easy situation to handle. Also, you saying on how the sadness is that they were forced to go in and be killed. Well, yes its true but only a few were killed and they changed their routine on how to do it and got through that problem. The main point was Joker just being able to do that mercy kill. Sorry, but none of this really seemed effective in being threatening to me as a viewer and as some effective in showing the coldness that Joker had become in killing her. Or any other emotion that was important.

Realist reality may not have been the right one, but calling Kubrick a surrealist isn't either. Kubrick's only reason for making Full Metal Jacket is because he could. He hates to travel outside of london for long periods of time like in filmming, but if her feels the only way he can get the best location possible is through shooting on the real actual place, then he will easily do it. He just thought he got it best through the sets of london, though I disagree and felt nothing really from them then just being a destroyed construction site of sorts.

Naw, politics is messy messy business and leads to fights. I remember the last one being about michael moore and I do disagree with most of his politics but the amusing thing is, I have more in common with him than anyone else here. I still like the guy and was a fan of his show on bravo some odd years back.

discussion about the legitimacy of the upcoming war with iraq could be fun though.

~rougerum

budgie

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Respect: 0
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #48 on: March 02, 2003, 12:08:11 PM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
obviously they had accomplished a lot in dehumanizaing themselves in boot camp, and that scene is just one part of it, the final act, and then they can sing the mickey mouse song with a clear conscience.


Did you consciously use the word 'accomplished' there, Jeremy?

I'm seduced by the lure of an Iraq debate.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10898
  • Respect: +1310
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #49 on: March 02, 2003, 03:56:28 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Realist reality may not have been the right one, but calling Kubrick a surrealist isn't either.


Eyes Wide Shut, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining... not surreal? I think most Kubrick movies try to create a "super-reality," and Kubrick said that filmmaking should not be taking a picture of reality, but taking a picture of the picture. The drawn-out FMJ scene reminds me of the drawn-out duel in Barry Lyndon. Are you going to tell me that the repeated slow motion sequences had nothing to do with surrealism?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Naw, politics is messy messy business and leads to fights.


We wouldn't want one of those, would we...

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
discussion about the legitimacy of the upcoming war with iraq could be fun though.


Quote from: budgie
Did you consciously use the word 'accomplished' there, Jeremy?

I'm seduced by the lure of an Iraq debate.


You return once again only to make me question myself... I think it's a sign... more of that, please...

Let's do it. You want to start GT, or I should I? Someone jump in if you want to.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10898
  • Respect: +1310
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2003, 04:40:38 PM »
0
Okay, I'll start. Let's play a game.

Identify the following quotes. George W. Bush or Adolf Hitler?



"I believe that Providence would never have allowed us to see victory if it had the intention after all to destroy us at the end."

"We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history."

"We must take the battle to the enemy... we will lift this dark threat from our nation and the world."

"The world will not help, so the people must help themselves. Our own strength is our source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle."

"I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

"The liberty we prize is not our gift to the world: it is God's gift to humanity."


sigh... okay, since nobody wanted to play, here are the answers: Hitler, Bush, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Bush
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2003, 05:21:11 PM »
0
Your assesments of Kubrick's reality are correct, but they still not are of the genre of surrealism really. They are, more or less, idenfitications of the reality of film in the first place. Luis Bunuel is considered the surrealist as a comercial director, now if you do think his career and how farther than it is of many filmmakers, assigning him role as the commerical surrealist seems odd but films as surrealism take on a very obscure role in movies that are hardly known or talked about. Kubrick's reality, like many filmmakers, is inspired by instead of really occupation of the genre. And to argue Full Metal Jacket own qualitification for being of a super reality worth of other Kubrick movies, I disagree and say it doesn't. I don't mind super reality, but make it effective before using it.

I'll start. My belief is that war is a necessary action, but I will not be pigeonholed into supporting everything Bush is planning. There are some aspects of the war, on both fronts, that are completely ridiculous. The main one being in the wealth of money through acquisition of oil from the aftermaths of the war. If I am correct, then I remember reading in the Wall Street Journal in late January of how oil companies have already chosen areas on where they will drill. That I do not agree with, but thing that most people won't say, is that France is withholding from supporting of war for many reasons, a big one being of the good deal they have with Iraq in getting oil themselves. The main thing that ruins the viens of all countries in this day and age is money, and it is definitely here within this war.

That doesn't mean though that this war is without reasons. It is. Everyone will admit Saddam Hussein is a terrible man, but the argument for not removing is that he is holed up in his country with nothing really to do. He doesn't even control all of his own country so since he is contained (unlike Hitler) then there is no real need to go to war with him. That is true, but in only some elements. As an extension to the original plan of campaigning a war on terror, Hussein does fit into that role and can be justly removed for that. Hussein is the biggest financier of terrorism within the Middle East. He has hid terrorists in his country for protection rights. I believe this to be completely true as I've seen every single expert on the political situation of the Middle East be dragged onto tv shows and say the simple facts that Saddam Hussein is the biggest contributor of money for terrorism and has aided in hiding terrorists. Through his role of aiding terrorism, he can and should be removed for that reason. With the Middle East being a country with tough regimes and little money, Hussein is a big man who does have a lot of money compared to others of the area.

Now, for his role in building weapons of mass destruction. He is doing it even though he is nowhere near the process of what is happening in North Korea. This fact can't be something to give him amnesty in not being dealt with. North Korea is as far along that I read a news report suggesting that their large weapons could maybe go as far as hitting Japan at the present moment. Not the United States. Iraq can be dealt with in a matter of weeks without really fully being brought to even a full war. Then attention can be brought up North Korea. North Korea is a position though of very shaky ground. They are lobbying for more support in the UN while facing many US warships and military watching them just in South Korea. For the present period, it seems unlikely North Korea is to do anything drastic because if they do, even China will likely pull out of support for them and the world will be against them.

What should happen is this, the bombing of Iraqi communications buildings, intelligence and military buildings. A systematic bombing of Iraq with the sole purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Also, help should be given to rebellion forces within Iraq to bring upon an upheaval of the government. Once Saddam Hussein is taken from power, either shoot, jail or put him into exile. Also, he has a couple of crazy kids. Kill them too. Nothing more than that really needs to be done. An engagement so minor it doesn't even qualify for being called a war. Now, the aftermath is the big thing. Since I am not much of a fan of the UN for ignoring violations Hussein has done against their treaty from Guld War that just kept Hussein in power, I feel the UN should keep strict super vision upon the devlopment of Iraq in an actual good way. USA has been apart of too many removing of governments and little care in the rebuilding. With the UN bringing upon strict regulations, then it will be brought to fault if Iraq gets out of control like so many other countries have done after seeing an old oppressive government be removed. The focus for this war needs to be more about the removing of an old government and building of a new one. Not just removal and recovery of money.

And to be honest, I don't mind Bush. Bush follow suits on every politician who just wants to keep power. I don't really endorse him nor dislike him. The sad thing about politics these days is that no one is wanting to make change for the better. "If you want enemies, propose change." -Woodrow Wilson. But, if you want to talk about a recent president I very much hate, then speak of Bill Clinton, who swore by democratic idealism but played make everyone happy politician instead. He is a sham of a president that smiled better than actually do anything.

~rougerum

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10898
  • Respect: +1310
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2003, 07:21:32 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Your assesments of Kubrick's reality are correct, but they still not are of the genre of surrealism really.


One person's surrealism is another person's realism. Even the founders of surrealism had different opinions about what it is (think Miro vs. Magritte).

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
My belief is that war is a necessary action


Is that a general statement? i.e. war is required for peace?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
The main thing that ruins the viens of all countries in this day and age is money, and it is definitely here within this war.


I agree with you about the French. But there is obviously opportunism on both sides.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
As an extension to the original plan of campaigning a war on terror, Hussein does fit into that role and can be justly removed for that. Hussein is the biggest financier of terrorism within the Middle East. He has hid terrorists in his country for protection rights. I believe this to be completely true as I've seen every single expert on the political situation of the Middle East be dragged onto tv shows and say the simple facts that Saddam Hussein is the biggest contributor of money for terrorism and has aided in hiding terrorists.


Do you actually trust TV news? Tony Blair (and he has admitted this) plaigarized a section of the doctoral thesis of an American grad student. He found it on the internet. He used that in a speech, and gave the information to Colin Powell, who praised it and used it as evidence in his famous UN speech. The paper was 12 years old, and the college student who wrote it has since denounced its facts and arguments. Read more here.

What you're hearing on TV is that Saddam supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which he absolutely does), who are not exactly synonymous with Al Qaeda, or other groups that would attack the U.S. on a large scale. Saddam and Bin Laden have historically been ideological enemies (apparently Saddam is an "infidel" and a "socialist"). Saddam's support of Palestinians is only opportunism to gain sympathy in the Arab world, and his main interest is for his own power within his own country... putting his fate (and his weapons) in the hands of terrorists who dislike him would not exactly lead to his own stability.

The CIA and FBI and British intelligence doubt the Al Qaeda links.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
What should happen is this, the bombing of Iraqi communications buildings, intelligence and military buildings.


Here's what's going to happen. 800 missiles in the first 48 hours will rain on the densely populated city of Baghdad. According to the Pentagon, "There will be no safe place in Baghdad." This is going to be an urban war.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Also, help should be given to rebellion forces within Iraq to bring upon an upheaval of the government.


That's relatively hopeless, since years of sanctions have weakened them. The rebellion forces were many times stronger in the first Gulf war.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
An engagement so minor it doesn't even qualify for being called a war.


Tell that to the innumerable civillians who will inevitably be killed by our bombs.  If we killed more that 3,000 civillians in Afghanistan, a sparsely populated wasteland, what do you think it's going to be like in Iraq?
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Duck Sauce

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
  • Respect: +4
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2003, 08:22:33 PM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

What you're hearing on TV is that Saddam supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which he absolutely does), who are not exactly synonymous with Al Qaeda, or other groups that would attack the U.S. on a large scale.


How do we know that these suicide bombers wont eventually attack the US on a large scale. I mean I know its possible to believe that anybody could, but dont they seem more likely to?


The thing about this war is that not very many people really "want" it, some think it is necessary. I for one don't want a war and think we should first do everything we can to prevent it, but if worst comes to worst I think we have to in order to protect ourselves in the future. I certainly dont have the answers, but if we dont goto war, what should we do?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2003, 03:36:59 PM »
0
I believe for this situation of Saddam Hussein, that war is means for achieving stability in Iraq. But no, not a general statement.

Very good JB on finding that news story to debunk mine......but the thing is, after the Gulf War, Hussein had to sign an agreement (forget actual name) verified by the UN to follow certain rules and do certain things to just be in power, since some in US wanted him out after that, but agreed to keep him in with him signing this and following it. Hussein broke it when throwing out weapons inspectors through out the 90s during various times. This was a clear violation of that agreement. The UN ignored it though for the most part, not doing anything to really stop Hussein in throwing the inspectors out. This is very similiar to a trend that happened with Germany after WW1. Germany was given harsh restrictions in the Versailles treaty that basically dictated to them in how many men and equipment they could have in each part of the military. Germany was to follow the restrictions and the League of Nations (precursor to the UN) was to enforce it. Germany did not follow, and began to build its army while the League of Nations, knowing of it, still ignored it. The rest is history. Now, do not dare bring an argument of that I claiming Hussein will do what Hitler did or these results will be of the same consequences in how bad it can be. Thing is, who knows. The fact remains in all of this is that Hussein, who was only able to keep power through following restrictions, did not and by the understanding of history, needs to be removed because the thing is, he has power and freedom to do something. It mat be developing weapons for other countries or organizations to use, but it will and more importantly, can be something. Its obvious Hussein is developing weapons and did violate the mandates that was set up upon him to keep power. These facts are undeniable and instead of waiting for people to die in some way, he can be removed now.

And your concerns for the Iraqi civilians are good and all, but Hussein will have to be dealt with at some time. Maybe not even him, maybe it will be through one of his son's, but it will happen. And the more time that is brought on waiting, the more that Hussein will go about killing his own people. An Iraqi refugee went on tv recently and said these words, "Saddam Hussein is like a cancer to the middle east. I hold him responsible for 1 million dead in the last 20 years for wars and killing of his own people." Then the man went into describing how he was tortured by Saddam's men in the late 1980s. It is sad, but innocent people will be killed to resolve this situation. The longer they wait to do it, the more people that will be killed. Hussein can't be dealt with, in my opinion, through political manuevers or something Gandi like. Just the way it is.

~rougerum

Sigur Rós

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • The H.W. of Xixax...
  • Respect: +7
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2003, 04:17:36 PM »
0
The man is extremely old. Let time deal with him. He's probably dead in 5 years. Wait....1-2-3...and he will die, think about it, then "We" the western-world won't have all of the muslim-world against us. Plus the Iraqien civil-people won't have to be bombed to death by the US. Surely they are suffering now but a war is not the solution, they cant eat the bombs. It will just course even more suffering to the people. His dead will cause and end to the Iraqien dictatorship, but a assination ordered by the American Goverment wont. Even if they assasinated him who should replace him? The people won't accept a leader placed by America. This would lead to a civil-war.

Anyway it's all about money and oil!.........god damn capitalism!........Anyway Xixax is about film.....but Kubrick's Forum would be the right place to discuss this :)

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10898
  • Respect: +1310
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2003, 05:39:57 PM »
0
Quote from: Duck Sauce
How do we know that these suicide bombers wont eventually attack the US on a large scale. I mean I know its possible to believe that anybody could, but dont they seem more likely to?


That might eventually happen, but don't blame them for what they haven't done. Don't worry though, I think we've found a way to accelerate the process.

Quote from: Duck Sauce
The thing about this war is that not very many people really "want" it


Yes, I'm sure Bush has deep moral concerns about military action, and the incredible amount of money he's recieved from the war industry had nothing to do with his gluttonizing the defense budget and starting the missile defense system. In fact, he's probably pondering civillian casualties as we speak (15 minutes per person).

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
And your concerns for the Iraqi civilians are good and all, but Hussein will have to be dealt with at some time.


This is the worst possible time I can think of, when Arab hostilities are at an all-time high, and North Korea is filling their lunchbox with nuclear goodies. And have we ever had a president who was more diplomatically disasterous? The only reason we have to take care of Iraq now, in preemptive war, is to stop the inspections before they work, and to get the timing right with Iraq so that when it's reelection time we can be in the middle of the next war. (or maybe the third installment of a trilogy!)

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
It is sad, but innocent people will be killed to resolve this situation. The longer they wait to do it, the more people that will be killed.


The people of Iraq are not empowered because A they have a brutal dicator (as does much of the world) and B years and years of sanctions, and years of blocking real humanitarian aid. It's estimated that 200 Iraqis die per day as a direct result of sanctions.

And the end does not always justify the means. This atmosphere of desperation has been engineered.

I won't even go into the fact that you didn't have the decency to spell Gandhi's name right.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Duck Sauce

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
  • Respect: +4
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2003, 05:42:23 PM »
0
Quote from: Sigur Rós
The man is extremely old. Let time deal with him. He's probably dead in 5 years. Wait....1-2-3...and he will die, think about it,


How old is he? 65ish? He could live 30 more years, and in that time attack. You are saying we should just rely on hoping that he gets sick and dies?

Quote from: Sigur Rós

then "We" the western-world won't have all of the muslim-world against us.


Especially groups like Al Qaeda

Quote from: Sigur Rós

Plus the Iraqien civil-people won't have to be bombed to death by the US.


Yeah, we could let them do it to us.

Quote from: Sigur Rós

Surely they are suffering now but a war is not the solution, they cant eat the bombs.


Ok, what is the solution then? Hoping he has a heart attack next week?

Quote from: Sigur Rós

It will just course even more suffering to the people. His dead will cause and end to the Iraqien dictatorship, but a assination ordered by the American Goverment wont.


When he dies, one of his sons will step in, who potentially could be worse.

Quote from: Sigur Rós

Anyway it's all about money and oil!.........


And about making sure that Saddam doesnt help destroy another part of the US. While I do believe that there is opportunism, Iraq does not have that much oil, that is why they invaded Kuwait in the 90s, and if there is a war, Iraq is going to be lighting the fields on fire. I know it can be argued that we will gain power and controll of the Middle East, but that is an issue I dont agree with.

It is obvious Sigur Ros that you dont really know shit about this topic. Leave it to the informed like JB to support the anti-war side. Dont mistake my comments for being for a war, but I am for getting rid of Saddam.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2003, 06:06:19 PM »
0
Yes, JB, North Korea is farther along the process of developing nuclear weapons than Iraq is to anything, but I've said that and I think Iraq can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, then onto North Korea. But it seems silly that some men walking around Iraq (which is the size of California) will prove to be any good. Evidence suggests Iraq is doing its best to be non cooperative and even Hans Blixer is not really believing Iraq is doing much. How much more time does Iraq need? They gave a report saying they had no weapons and now are in the process of "destroying" some. Well, Iraq knows when some nuclear warheads were found and it went against the report, they were caught with their pants down and had to do something. Honestly, the best policy for them, if they were really smart, was to admit to all the weapons right at the beginning and send USA searching for reasons to go to war.

The second argument is just trying to find justification for the dictatorship of Iraq. A dictatorship is wrong either way.

And talking about quotes, here's one from one of my favorite shows, Pardon The Interruption, which I just got done watching: "No justice, no peace."
 
And, sorry, GANDHI.

~rougerum

Sigur Rós

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • The H.W. of Xixax...
  • Respect: +7
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #59 on: March 04, 2003, 03:59:06 AM »
0
You guys are seriously being manipulated by your goverment, and your CNN, BBC....etc. This is just like the Iraqien people you don't get the truth....so don't think you do! Very few realises how the americans makes up storys about Iraq. Like back in 1991 when they entered Kuwait because they claimed that Iraq had attacked Kuwait. This was later proved to be untrue! America claimed that Iraq has attacked with no less then 200.000 men but sattelite-photos showed only a few thousand......hmm credibility....I dont believe any "facts" from America!

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy