[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by mattgoveiagt

Yeah, in that case, I suppose the govt should be warning us that we'll have forces in Iraq for decades, not years...

Yes, but not in the high numbers we have now. I think that at this juncture, most Americans understand that we'll have to keep at least some military forces in Iraq almost indefinitely following any large-scale 'withdrawal'. This happens following every war. We still have soldiers in South Korea, 53 years after an 'armistice' (agreed to by all parties involved but never actually signed) went into effect, back in 1953.

I really do hope that the civilians there realize their situation and start doing things (big or small) to help us help them, rather than helping the terrorists that don't truly have their interests in mind.

So do I but Iraqis are a people that were raised under totaltarian rule (dictators) and I think they have a hard time adjusting to freedom. The Fear Factor is also a harsh reality, not a TV show, for Iraqis, many of whom live with the threat of being blown up or shot by terrorists at any time - for no real reason - except to 'terrorize' civilians. That tends to have an inhibiting effect on the locals turning in terrorists - but that can change - which is what the terrorists fear. If Iraqis' ever stop being afraid of the thugs (terrorists) that are infesting their country, Iraq will be (relatively) peaceful.

Concerning the "civilian kills" comment I made, I never meant to imply that our military does anything close to terrorism, I probably should have worded my post better. I guess my mind is focused a bit too much on my classes.

O.K. No harm, no foul.

I just wanted to point out that the U.S. military targets terrorists, not ordinary Iraqi civilians. Sometimes it's difficult to separate the two, but the U.S. military does so on a regular basis, which is remarkable. Someday, military historians will look back on our early 21st century experience in Iraq with great admiration for the skill and determination of the U.S. military and what they were able to accomplish in a few short years, under very adverse conditions.

Speaking of...

I'm probably on the young end of the regulars here, and thus I've never seen 1984 or Clockwork Orange, etc, but I plan to. I can never find them at the rental places around here.

Keep trying. Ask the manager to order either movie for you. I would strongly suggest you rent the 1984 version of '1984'. There was a 1954 version - and it stinks. Meanwhile, read the novel. It's a classic. the protagonist, Winston Smith, is a lot more compelling (and relatable) than 'V' ever was.

'A Clockwork Orange' (released back in 1971) is set in a near-future England (now run by a fascist-like government) has a sadistic psychopath ('Alex') as it's protagonist. 'Alex' is totally unlikable. However, 'Alex' is also portrayed as a (young) necessarily tough 'rugged individualist' fighting the imposed regimentation of an oppressive police state. The film is definitely flawed (on hindsight, 'Alex' - a very young Malcolm McDowell - is basically a vicious thug with no real redeeming qualities) but very well done (directed by Stanley KUbrick of '2001' fame) with lots of classical music by Beethoven on the soundtrack that - against all logic - seems to compliment the vicious violence in the movie. It's not my all-time favorite film but it's worth a rental and is very compelling. By the end, you're rooting for 'Alex' - and, as I said, he's a sadistic sociopath, at best. Interesting film for all that.

I did get the Godfather boxed set at Best Buy a while back, and I thought it was really good. Even the 2nd and 3rd one that everyone seems to have a problem with. It's MUCH better than Scarface, which every thug wannabe in California seems to emulate these days. I swear, if I see another one of those shirts... Is wearing a Scarface shirt supposed to give you some sort of instant street cred or something?

'Scarface' is a very violent crime drama (yet, also, well done) and 'Tony Montana' (played by the talented Al Pacino) is a hardened criminal. That younger people seem to find the character (a cocaine dealer, in the movie) someone worthy of 'respect' is ridiculous but then, I would guess that some of the T-shirt wearers you mention never even saw the movie (that came out back in 1983, before some of them were born). It's likely just a stupid fad. Next year, they'll be wearing T-shirts with the 'Guy Fawkes' facemask imprinted on them. Go figure.