One of the main themes of this movie is that we should have stayed in Iraq and finished the job better in the first Gulf Storm...i.e...taken out Saddam. How we sort of left the Iraqis out to dry and they were punished by Saddam after the war.
But after the second Iraq War and how badly that has gone after we stayed in Iraq, doesnt that defeat the point of most of this movie?
The threat of insurgents wasn't there during the Gulf War. No al qaeda, no Bin Laden, no jihad. Just Saddam's ragedy army that we wooped. We also had the backing of the UN, and other countries in the Middle East. It would have been much easier to go after him then, and occupy the country until a new government was formed.
shareThere are so many ethnic and religious groups in Iraq ,that the same thing would happen upon occupation.the Hajjis would have clashed together with themselves and us..an yes I am in the military..The Iraqi people are like people living 500 +++ years in the past in feudal times...
But I agree it had been easier to do it then than now..
Actually, that's not the case at all. It doesn't matter if the US had invaded and occupied Iraq in 1991 or 2003 it wouldn't have been any easier and would have ended the same way.
The threat of insurgents was definitely there. It's always there in a place that's invaded, a lot of Iraqis wouldn't have liked it and would have resisted. History has shown countless times that nobody likes being invaded and occupied.
Islamic Jihad was very much alive prior to 9/11. Just not too many Americans paid attention to it before then. It had been bubbling under the surface for decades before. Hell, just look at the Iranian revolution in the 70's.
Saddam's "raggedy army" was also "whooped" very quickly in the current Iraq conflict, but we're still there six years later.
Yes, America did have the backing of other countries, yet as Dick Cheney himself pointed out back in 1994, they were only willing to fight in Kuwait, and not willing to invade Iraq with us.
"We'll settle this the old Navy way. First guy to die loses."
The threat of insurgents was definitely there. It's always there in a place that's invaded, a lot of Iraqis wouldn't have liked it and would have resisted. History has shown countless times that nobody likes being invaded and occupied.
Islamic Jihad was very much alive prior to 9/11. Just not too many Americans paid attention to it before then. It had been bubbling under the surface for decades before.
Saddam's "raggedy army" was also "whooped" very quickly in the current Iraq conflict, but we're still there six years later.
Yes, America did have the backing of other countries, yet as Dick Cheney himself pointed out back in 1994, they were only willing to fight in Kuwait, and not willing to invade Iraq with us.
"Insurgents in the current war came from Al Qaeda and other militants all over the Middle East, not just Iraq. They came because this war is more against Al Qaeda and other terrorists, not just Iraq like the last war was."
Yeah, because we didn't invade and occupy Iraq in the Gulf War. That's why they didn't come to fight us because other Muslim countries wanted Iraq out of Kuwait but not an invasion and occupation of Iraq.
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and occupied it in the 80's the same thing happened. People from all over the Muslim World and the Middle East went there to fight against them. When you invade and try to take over a country you risk making enemies of other countries that share cultural and historical ties to that one.
"That's only because we allowed it to exist. Did we not defeat it in the current war? What is your point?"
My point is that even though we defeated it just a few weeks into the current Iraq War, the fighting is still going on six years after the Iraqi military was defeated. It would have been the same in 1991. We could have easily beaten the military then too, but still would have had to face guerilla warfare from the insurgents.
"Yes, but which countries are you talking about? In '97 when Saddam wasn't letting the UN inspectors in to do their job, and Clinton sent 250,000 troops over there locked and loaded, the UN would have backed us. So if some countries were reluctant, doesn't mean they couldn't have been persuaded."
True, but those troops Clinton sent over certainly didn't remove Saddam from power and occupy Iraq.
I'm referring to all the countries that fought with the US, but the Arab ones in particular.
Here's the video of Cheney in 1994 saying why the US was right not to go invade Iraq and take out Saddam in 1991.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
A he says, "None of the Arab forces that were willing ot fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq."
The countries he was referring to that assisted the US in the Gulf War were
Egypt
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
United Arab Emirates
"We'll settle this the old Navy way. First guy to die loses."
Insurgents in the current war came from Al Qaeda and other militants all over the Middle East, not just Iraq. They came because this war is more against Al Qaeda and other terrorists, not just Iraq like the last war was.
Yea, and look at how many muslim fighters came to Afghanistan in the 80s to be part of the mujahedeen against the invading Soviet, Red Army. It makes no difference in that context(of a potential jihadi) The communist Soviets or the capitalist Americans, both are nonmuslim(the government, majority culture), invading forces, to them, so yea, an invasion in 91, still would have attracted jihadis to fight Americans, had the military invaded Iraq then. I mean, the jihadis of the mujahedeen, following the end of the afghan-soviet war, some of them, went to Bosnia, to fight nonmuslims there.
Not to mention, in Islam, the idea of a jihad has been around forever, and the very word jihad, is often debated, ect in the minds of Muslims. a jihad, is not a inherently bad thing, simply a struggle, to go through with someone one doesnt want to do(according to a Saudi i once knew). However, there really is nothing wrong with a defensive jihad war, look into the concept of jihad...were America to be invaded by the Chinese, would we not defend ourselves as a people?
sorry about the rant, but as an American, I am so goddamn tired of my own people spewing out anti Muslim bigotry. I hear it often, and I do not like it. I went to Egypt(a year before 9/11) and Turkey(a year after 9/11) as a kid and thought they both had beautiful cultures.
I think occupying Iraq in 2003 was actually less costly in American lives due to the better technology than we had in 1991.
shareI think occupying Iraq in 2003 was actually less costly in American lives due to the better technology than we had in 1991.
[deleted]
I think occupying Iraq in 2003 was actually less costly in American lives due to the better technology than we had in 1991.
just wait a few decades for people to really notice the health consequences...just like agent orange in Vietnam, I have a feeling the military has screwed up again in a similar way, with Depleted Uranium.
The point is, Amerika (like the heroes when the movie begins) was only there for its own interests, not to save Iraq or Kuwait or anyone. They don't even care about their own veterans.
IMO This is more valid than ever after the "new" mess in Iraq.
The point is, Amerika (like the heroes when the movie begins) was only there for its own interests, not to save Iraq or Kuwait or anyone. They don't even care about their own veterans.
What's wrong about going to war defending national interests? LOL Do you realize that the military exists to preserve national interests?
And why would America let Saddam take control of the oil in Kuwait? Because we shouldn't use our power to defend our interests? Don't make me laugh...
"National Interests" = Oil.
Stealing from thieves.
It's just a shame that a lot of good people die for these "national interests".
Wake up!
See the world, oil is one of the most important assets a country has. If a country refuses to defend and protect its supply of oil that country is going to have serious problems... Soldiers who voluntarily enlist to serve are aware of that. They know that without oil a country cannot survive. Yes, they know what are they fighting for.
LoL what's the argument against fighting for oil?
If America doesn't take it, China or Russia will take it, and then America will depend on them for energy supply.
The US gave Saddam the go ahead to invade Kuwait and then immediately backflipped and attacked him.
Manufacturing your own enemies forn your personal interest? What are you, Israel?
Why do morons like you spell America with a K?
"I may not punish you for treason, but I could slap you for stupidity."
Actually, that wasn't really the theme. I think it was really more about the consequences of the US meddling in other nation's affairs, in this case Iraq, something very prominent later on, as it was what led to 9/11, as well as many of the attacks before. It was something that George Washington had warned America about.
It did focus on the way the US government convinced the Iraqis to rise up and then abandoned them, but if you watch in the beginning of the movie where Clooney's character, Gates, is talking to Colonel Horn, asking what they did there, he replies "What do you want to do? Occupy Iraq and do Vietnam all over again?", a bit of a prophetic statement.
Back in 1994, even Dick Cheney, who had been Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr in the Gulf War predicted what would happen if the US went into Iraq and removed Saddam.
There's also the scene after the Americans escape the tear gas and are in the cave, and Cliff Curtis's character, the rebel leader, tells them how they don't understand how complex Iraq is, and how he had wanted to set up hotels in Iraq, but the Americans had blown up his cafes.
Then of course there's the scene where Whalberg's character, Barlow, is captured and tortured by Captain Said, who's angry about losing his son and his wife being maimed in the bombing. That's another situation that reflects what happened in the current Iraq War. Even if people hated the ruthless Saddam, they weren't going to be happy with the Americans for killing their loved ones.
It really portrays the black and white mentality of many Americans during both the first and current wars with Iraq. Too many people in the US didn't understand Iraq's culture or history and had the idea of "Us against them, We're good, they're bad, end of story.", without even considering that there may be some shades of grey.
"We'll settle this the old Navy way. First guy to die loses."
No, the movie doesn't lose its substance due to the second War on Iraq; because the Black man in this movie directly makes the point that occupying Iraq isn't a good option either, and Clooney's character has no response to that because he knows it's a good point that can't be rebutted. This movie shows the drawbacks to not occupying Iraq, but likewise makes the point that occupying isn't a perfect choice either. Things like this are why it's a masterpiece movie that stands the test of time. Unlike most movies of this kind, it's not one-sided propaganda with a political agenda, and hence does not promote the message "we should have occupied Iraq because that is a better choice" (which the original post seems to be erroneously implying that that is the purpose of the movie). Rather, it simply shows consequences, both good and bad, of not occupying Iraq, without taking a definitive position on whether Iraq should be occupied or not.
Besides that, the movie makes the point that the problems were caused mainly by the US administration of Bush Sr. instructing rebels to rise up against Saddam with US support and then the US abandoning them after having instructed them to do that. That is to say, occupying Iraq or not is a secondary issue to the main problem which was that misleading instruction which never should have been given.
Having said all that, they should indeed make a sequel about the second War on Iraq; in fact I've made a thread about that on this board before. This movie doesn't lose its substance due to the second War on Iraq, but it does become an incomplete picture of the situation. A sequel is required to complete the picture.
"not one-sided propaganda with a political agenda"
Hey that's funny. Tell me another one.
Go read some of the things Clooney has said and tell me that he'd star in any movie about Iraq that doesn't make the US military and the US in general look uniformly bad.
Go read some of the things Clooney has said
Google "Clooney Iraq" for many many links. Since you won't do that and apparently haven't been paying attention, here are a few. Note that last link. He is producing and staring in it. If you think that Clooney's politics don't influence the roles he takes then you are very naive. When he stars in a movie about the false prosecution of the Marines in Haditha I'll shut up.
Now, back at you. At what point in the movie is the US military portrayed in a positive light?
---------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2677881.stm
Clooney in anti-war protest
Clooney says the US Government should talk, not act
Actor George Clooney has spoken out against a possible US invasion of Iraq, accusing President George W Bush of running the US Government "like the Sopranos".
Speaking on the PBS television network, Clooney said Mr Bush and his cabinet were behaving like Big Tony and his mobster family in the TV show.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31189
Clooney: 'America's policies frustrate me'
Actor criticizes country again in European media
Actor George Clooney continues to pound American foreign policy any chance he gets while talking to foreign media outlets.
"America's policies frustrate me," Clooney told a German television program yesterday. "I think a war against Iraq is as unavoidable as it is senseless. I think it's coming. But I also think the real danger is going to be what happens after it."
Clooney, who in interviews with European newspapers has accused Bush of war-mongering over Iraq, is on a growing list of Hollywood celebrities to speak out against war. Others include Sean Penn, Ed Harris, Dustin Hoffman, Madonna and director Spike Lee.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/george-clooney-keen-to-play-lead-in-anti-war-iraq-films_10080233.html
George Clooney keen to play lead in anti-war Iraq films
August 5th, 2008 - 6:57 pm ICT by ANI -
New York , Aug 5 (ANI): George Clooney is all set to star in a movie on the Iraq war, even though anti-war films about Iraq tend to bomb at the box-office.
Whats more, Clooney will also be producing the pic, as well as starring in it.
When he stars in a movie about the false prosecution of the Marines in Haditha I'll shut up.
Go do some more research. Despite your belief otherwise, the Marines at Haditha have been almost entirely exonerated which makes them falsely accused. That's not really the point. If you think the political content of a movie does not affect Clooney's choices, then he would be willing to star in such a movie that made a case for the Marines innocence regardless of any actual facts. Hollywood takes a "point of view" with "historical" movies all the time. Clooney would never ever take such a role regardless of how much money he was offered.
"Three Kings is not a Bush-hating liberal movie"
That's funny right there. I've lost count of how many times the movie had either Clooney or Iraqis bashing Bush. Balance would have been showing Kuwaitis being thankful for the US and others kicking Saddam out. That scene must have ended up on the cutting room floor.
Interestingly enough this movies portrays
1. The Iraqi military as having ready access to chemical weapons which they use on their civilian population.
2. The Iraqi people begging for the US to come in a liberate them from Saddam.
Today I'll bet Clooney would deny both propositions as being true.
Iran portrayed as a sanctuary? A haven of peace and individual liberty. Who would have thought?
"Go do some more research. Despite your belief otherwise, the Marines at Haditha have been almost entirely exonerated which makes them falsely accused."
Yes. They were tried by an all-military jury, with a military man presiding, at a court room in California half a world away from the crime scene. No Iraqi civilians were brought in, not even the families of the victims were allowed to testify.
The trial was a farce - imagine the American public's reaction if the Rodney King beatings (a much lesser offense) had been dealt with entirely as an internal affair by the LAPD in a courthouse in New England, with Rodney King, civilian witnesses or any civilian from LA kept out of the proceedings - yeah, we wouldn't have had race riots, we'd have had a second civil war.
"Iran portrayed as a sanctuary? A haven of peace and individual liberty. Who would have thought?"
A haven of individual liberty is something the movie never suggests - a haven of peace, of course. It might have escaped your notice that the Iraqis the military men were helping were Shi'a, same as the Iranian government, which had been trying to build good relations with them for years (as a fifth column against Saddam). It would stand to reason that they'd be well-treated there, or at least expect to be.
Keep flying, son. And watch that potty mouth!
This movie shows the drawbacks to not occupying Iraq, but likewise makes the point that occupying isn't a perfect choice either.
Spot on. That's definitely the point of the movie.
Besides that, the movie makes the point that the problems were caused mainly by the US administration of Bush Sr. instructing rebels to rise up against Saddam with US support and then the US abandoning them after having instructed them to do that.
Actually this was a huge misunderstanding. Bush's appeal meant to encourage a military coup to depose Saddam, not a popular rebellion. There was also nothing about US support.
Yep.
Read Colin Powell's biography for a pretty good understanding of why we acted the way we did after winning the war. Basically, a strong Iraq was useful as a buffer standing between our oil-rich allies in the Gulf and our/their enemies in Iran and Syria. Beating back Iraq and taking it down a peg was important, but it was also important to make sure it remained strong enough to fulfill that buffer role.
They thought Saddam would probably be overthrown, given how massive his defeat in the war was, but they thought his successor would most likely be another strongman, and they were okay with that.
There's a plan in everything, kid. And I love it when a plan comes together!
[deleted]
[deleted]
well, i mean in gulf war one, there were something like 400,000 or 500,000 americans and in gulf war ii, there were like 120,000 americans, i mean, those extra troops could have really came in handy. also, if there wasnt that stupid decision which was made in the most recent war to disband the old iraqi army, we could have kept them around as security, instead of firing trained young men from their jobs.. which resulted in a bunch of young iraqis that know how to shoot, being jobless, in a situation where their country has just been invaded. i could see why they would dislike americans in that context.
But yea, the extra 300,000 or 400,000 soldiers and not firing the old army(except maybe the Republican Guard) it might have been different. There is also the thing, in this war, that the Shia and Kurds probably have a bit of a grudge, possibly given that America encouraged rebellion, then abandoned them to saddam in 1991. If we had gone in earlier(1991), and taken Baghdad then, perhaps there would be more support from these groups. Although, bin Laden might have acted sooner, if we had stayed in Iraq in 1991.
Then, however, there is the probable/possible issue of Depleted Uranium environmental toxicity caused from Abrams and A-10 warthogs firing off their rounds...think this should be addressed whenever any recent middle eastern war that involved the United States, is discussed, when was the last time you ever heard about it in the news? check this out, a talk on DU, given by a former soldier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8
The original poster wrote in 2009. Three years later both Sadam & Bin Laden have gone.
There's still political unrest and volatility in the Middle East and always the possibility of new terrorist groups emerging.
The film is set 1991, I still believe that American intervention in the region should have ended with a more conclusive result, ie, eliminate the cause of the unrest rather than try to impose regulation and keep it under control. Retreating indicates vulnerability and then escalated with terrorist counter-attacks a couple of years after the film was released.
no not really for me, I had h.s. friends go off to the Gulf War in 90-91. I really liked this movie,, it represented an accurate depiction of what went on,, I remember watching the War live on CNN every night,,
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite