MovieChat Forums > U-571 (2000) Discussion > What I find interesting is...

What I find interesting is...

posted 14 years ago by michaelnewman01
22 replies | jump to latest

It seems to me that U-571 could have escaped all this criticism very simply. By replacing the Enigma coding machine with some fantastical other MacGuffin... say, magnetic torpedo detonators or some other piece of equipment.

The primary gripe here is that the Americans are trying to distory history by claiming the capture of the Enigma. Other than that, I think that U-571 would come off more positively. I know for one that I don't give two figs for the Enigma, I just love the action and some of the raw emotions I see in it.

Was this a failure of Mostow?

Sure, why not. He could have done better. But his choice of the Enigma was not designed specifically to take credit, it was rather that he thought the Enigma coding machine was familiar enough to the general public to be a good plot device.

I mean, it might seem much sillier if the S-33 was going after some obscure bit of technology that no one except submariners would understand... Mostow simply wanted to give the plot more depth.

I think we can all agree that the British were the ones who captured the Enigma. No one's debating that. The U.S. got theirs, too, with U-505, but much later and less successfully. Hell, the movie itself notes that the British got it first.

Personally, I wish we could see an American sub movie in the Pacific again, when the Silent Service really shone. But I digress.

So here's my challenge. Bleep out the words "Enigma" and "code books" in the movie. Replace them with "magnetic detonator circuit" or something similar and "technical diagrams." See if maybe you can enjoy the movie a bit more...

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

It all stems from people who cannot grasp the concept of "Historical Fiction"

U-571 is not based on a true event
The story is and has always been a work of fiction.

Some morons with overly sensitive feelings get their knickers in a twist when it comes to USA's involvement in WW2

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

And some people have the right to be offended when the film depicts them as cartoon villains.

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

gsbr,

Don't even know what left field you are coming out of with that comment since 99% of those who are upset at this film are all British upset over the false perception that this film is trying to claim a false view of history.. Not Germans.

I don't know of anyone to include the German crew in this film that were depicted as "cartoonish villians" as you put it.

The enemy (as they were in real life) yes, but not villians.

The only thing even remotely villianous about the German crew was shooting the survivors in the lifeboat. Yet even that was realistic given the unique circumstances the German crew with their disabled sub was in. Had that same crew just came across the survivors and not been disabled, that shooting would have never happened that way.

Watch the movie again and listen to the captain explain to the RELUCTANT gunner, as to WHY they had to shoot.

I especially don't know where you are coming from since this in the ONLY post of your I can find on this board.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

This is from Damien-43's review:

But here is the most evil thing about "U-571" -- director Jonathan Mostow in many interviews has complained that the great submarine movie "Das Boot" was a lie because it portrayed the German crew as sailors, soldiers, human beings and not Nazis. This is why he opens his film with the U-boat crew gunning down a lifeboat of helpless, unarmed Allied survivors. Jonathan Mostow perpetuates every lie, every war-time propaganda fabrication, every stereotype ever perpetrated about the enemy. During wartime such propaganda is necessary... but this is sixty years later. No one is in any way excusing the monstrousness of the Nazis. But it is stupid and blind to portray every single German as cut from that same blood-stained cloth. Even English viewers -- who have far, far more reason to hate the Nazis than any American -- have been quick to point out the foulness of Mostow's vision.

This is from Prosinecki's review:
One scene was disturbing, however. Early in the film, the U-boat comes upon a lifeboat full of British sailors. The U-boat commander orders his gunner to kill them all, because "The Führer has ordered us not to pick up survivors." It is disappointing to see the myth of U-boats executing occupants of lifeboats perpetuated yet again. The truth about the Laconia order is it did forbid picking up survivors but did not specify that they be shot, simply that they not be rescued or aided as well as the only case on record in World War II in which a U-boat purposely fired on survivors in the water.

As anyone familiar with U-boat history knows, this is nonsense. It is well known that the U-boat arm was the least political of any of the German military branches in World War II. While some U-boat men were indeed confirmed Nazis, many were not. Men fight hard in every war, not for reasons of ideology, but for reasons of personal survival and out of a sense of duty and obligation to their group or unit. Mostow's opinion on this particular topic is just that - an opinion, apparently not founded on any knowledge of U-boat history or military psychology

The British have the right to be offended too, the film gives Americans credit for something they did. But Germans should be more offended when the director claims his film is more realistic with its ardent Nazi sailors.

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

"have the right to be offended"

Well, I don't think I've ever heard it put quite that way before...

That kind of thinking, that you are entitled to have some sort of proxy offense to a perceived slight due to purely tentative connections--that kind of thinking, in its most extreme version, is what causes wars.

Take for example, the United States submarine service in WWII. Despite the fact that the U.S are so often portrayed as the 'good guys', there is at least one instance of a skipper (Mush Morton) machinegunning lifeboats. And apparently that was all too common, from every side. There are always exceptions to the rule, and for a film that is only vaguely historical, I don't have a problem with it.

Let's face it, gentlemen, you're not exactly a humanitarian if you're sending a thousand pounds of explosives into a hapless merchie to begin with. Convoy attacks, as a rule, are damned unsporting--bordering on cold-blooded murder. Any time a country's military and/or citizenry are portrayed as the cold villains, that country probably isn't going to be a fan of the movie.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

It's not just that, the director claimed Das Boot is a lie and his vision is more historically accurate.

[–] greenbanzanas 13 years ago

Michael, I trust you're not American, because in America in the 1950s or 1960s the Supreme Court disagreed with you when they said that a person can wear a jacket with the expression *beep* the Draft on it. Why? Because, living in a free society affords everyone the right to offend others so long as you're not holding your audience captive, such as over the airwaves. At least that was the law 10 years ago, I'm not sure what Bush's cronies have done to it, but, trust me, if one doesn't have the right to offend one could not do anything for fear their actions or words might offend others, although you could be correct that not having the right to offend is a more accurate version of contemporary America.

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

Reread what I said.

I said that its a problem when people believe that they have a right to be offended, to make themselves feel offended. And I'm not talking about a 'protected' right set down in a government tome. I'm talking about human interaction, moral interaction.

Yes, freedom of speech affords most anyone in the U.S. the ability to say whatever they want, the good and the bad, the cautious and the downright offensive. No, what I mean is as human beings we should hold ourselves to an inner, greater standard, where the most precious things about 'rights' is that we don't need exercise them, or use that entitlement as a defense.

Rudyard Kipling's poem "If", I think, exemplifies that: "If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise."

Just because we have a guaranteed right to something does not mean we should not exercise responsibility and internal self-discipline.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

gsbr,

Again you show the lack of understanding that I pointed out in my previous post and you perpetuate it by posting BS and misinformation that perpetuates your PERCEIVED view.

This is why he opens his film with the U-boat crew gunning down a lifeboat of helpless, unarmed Allied survivors.

Shows the quality of your source when that is not anywhere near the "opening scene" but much later (almost halfway) through the film.

Jonathan Mostow perpetuates every lie, every war-time propaganda fabrication, every stereotype ever perpetrated about the enemy.

So this one scene showing the machine gunning of the British survivors encompasses EVERY lie, EVERY fabrication told against the German's?
ROFLMFAO!!!

moving on to your second source...

One scene was disturbing, however. Early in the film, the U-boat comes upon a lifeboat full of British sailors. The U-boat commander orders his gunner to kill them all, because "The Führer has ordered us not to pick up survivors."

Again this is biased and misleading because this IS NOT what the film shows. It is what a biased individual against the film WANTS to see.

The Kaluen did not order them to fire "because they could not pick them up."
As I pointed out to you and you IGNORED apparently, is the unique situation the U-571 crew found themselves in. Had U-571 been at normal readiness and had come across the survivors, they would have simply passed them by. But they could not. They were disabled and adrift. They could not simply sail away. They could not take them aboard because of the order, true. But they could not let them go either because of their disabled status. They had no way of 'Clearing datum" as we say in the Navy. had the survivors been spotted and picked up by their own side, they would have reported the U-571 adrift and disabled "with great eagerness" as the Kaluen pointed out. it was THIS that decided a rather reluctant commander that they had not choice in this instance except to destroy the survivors.

The truth about the Laconia order is it did forbid picking up survivors but did not specify that they be shot, simply that they not be rescued or aided as well as the only case on record in World War II in which a U-boat purposely fired on survivors in the water.

Again this goes to show what a total fraking moron both your source and you for accepting it without question, are.
No U-boats targeted Allied survivors during the Laconia incident.

U-156, off the coast of Africa came across the RMS Laconia carrying some 80 civilians, 268 British Army soldiers, about 1,800 Italian prisoners of war, and 160 Polish soldiers, and torpedoed her.
The Sub immediately began rescue operations of the survivors.
While stuck on the surface with survivors on deck and towing others behind her in lifeboats, U-156 was found by allied air patrols and bombed.

THIS resulted in the Laconia order which prevented U-boats from rendering aid to survivors.

There was a ACTUAL incident of a U-boat machine gunnign helpless survivors though and it was by one of the most famous U-boat aces of all time.
Erich Topp.
It was during the sinking of the David H. Atwater off the Virginia coast.
Erich Topp's U-552 attacked the Atwater on the surface and raked it with 88mm deck gun and 20mm cannon fire. The ship was sinking and going down, crew ordered to abandon ship.
As it did so, Erich Topp directed his crewmen to continue firing, striking the Atwater's crewmen as they tried to man the lifeboats. When Captain Webster was shot, the crew abandoned attempts to launch the lifeboats and leapt into the sea.

As anyone familiar with U-boat history knows, this (machine gunning survivors) is nonsense.

Not nonsense... it DID happen. just not with any regularity. There were TWO confirmed cases. The second case was with Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, Commander of U-852.

He was on a patrol heading for South African waters and then on to the Indian Ocean. While en-route he encountered the lone Greek steamer SS Peleus, and sank her with two torpedoes on 13 March.

The sinking Peleus left a large debris field, amongst which were a number of survivors clinging to rafts and wreckage. This field would provide unmistakable evidence of the presence of an enemy submarine, and thus would betray the position of the U-852 to aircraft and shipping patrolling the area. Eck then controversially decided to sink the wreckage with the use of hand grenades and automatic weapons. The question of whether this "dispersal" order explicitly or implicitly encouraged the killing of the sailors in the water, or whether this was an unfortunate example of collateral damage was to be the subject of a famous post war trial. During the trial, Eck acknowledged he realized that by sinking the rafts, he was denying the seamen a chance of survival.

And as Michael pointed out it happened with us too.
One of our most decorated war heroes and sub skippers, Dudley "Mush" Morton.
With our MOST decorated future sub skipper, Dick O'Kane as her XO.
USS Wahoo.

On Wahoo's third patrol they sunk a Japanese transport loaded with thousands of Enemy soldiers. These soldiers went into the water upon sinking of the vessel but they were within easy reach of nearby islands and atolls. Morton ordered the machine gunning of the lifeboats to prevent these soldiers from reaching land and thus be able to continue the fight against our marines. Machine Gun fire was specifically directed at the lifeboats and not specifically at the survivors themselves. However the consequences is still the deaths of hundreds of enemy survivors.

This is more akin to what we see in the Movie as it is the unique circumstances, not regular practice, that resulted in the decision to machine gun the lifeboats.

You want to be pissed. You "have a right to be incensed" as it was put.
So you look for excuses to be mad and avoid or ignore reality.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

And you failed to realize why I posted excerpts from those reviews.

You claimed "99% of those who are upset at this film are all British upset over the false perception that this film is trying to claim a false view of history.. Not Germans." I posted excerpts to show people were also angry over the depiction of German sailors.

But, because you insist on making yourself look stupid...

Shows the quality of your source when that is not anywhere near the "opening scene" but much later (almost halfway) through the film.

Wrong, this scene happens 27 minutes into the film. That's closer to the movie's opening than "almost halfway."

So this one scene showing the machine gunning of the British survivors encompasses EVERY lie, EVERY fabrication told against the German's?
ROFLMFAO!!!

No, Mostow encompasses EVERY lie, EVERY fabrication told against the Germans (not German's) with the comments he made about Das Boot. You keep focusing on the scene where the Germans fire on the British survivors and say nothing about Mostow claiming Das Boot is a lie and U-boat sailors were all ardent Nazis.

Let me repeat that- he says ALL the men who sailed in U-boats were Nazis. Through these comments, he made it pretty obvious that he believes German sailors were very bad men.

The Kaluen did not order them to fire "because they could not pick them up."
As I pointed out to you and you IGNORED apparently, is the unique situation the U-571 crew found themselves in. Had U-571 been at normal readiness and had come across the survivors, they would have simply passed them by. But they could not. They were disabled and adrift. They could not simply sail away. They could not take them aboard because of the order, true. But they could not let them go either because of their disabled status. They had no way of 'Clearing datum" as we say in the Navy. had the survivors been spotted and picked up by their own side, they would have reported the U-571 adrift and disabled "with great eagerness" as the Kaluen pointed out. it was THIS that decided a rather reluctant commander that they had not choice in this instance except to destroy the survivors.

Nope, the Captain did tell the gunner "Standing orders of the Fuhrer. We will not pick up any survivors." Then he decides to add the little detail about the British survivors notifying their rescuers about the sub's status. But the Captain wasn't reluctant and he wasn't forced to fire upon the lifeboat. Aid was coming to U-571, an SOS was sent and the rescue ships knew where the submarine was located. Only by luck would the survivors on the lifeboat find help, why else would they be coming over to the enemy U-boat? It's unlikely that U-571 would still be disabled by the time the British survivors got picked up.

More importantly, this scene isn't necessary. If it was cut from the film, the story would not be affected. But Mostow included anyways to remind his audience that German sailors "were gung-ho and pro-Nazi, and to portray otherwise is basically a complete revision of history."

Again this goes to show what a total fraking moron both your source and you for accepting it without question, are.
No U-boats targeted Allied survivors during the Laconia incident.

You should probably re-read the review. The reviewer didn't say "No U-boats targeted Allied survivors during the Laconia incident", he acknowledges the one time a U-boat fired on sailors while the Laconia incident was in effect.

There was a ACTUAL incident of a U-boat machine gunnign helpless survivors though and it was by one of the most famous U-boat aces of all time.
Erich Topp.
It was during the sinking of the David H. Atwater off the Virginia coast.
Erich Topp's U-552 attacked the Atwater on the surface and raked it with 88mm deck gun and 20mm cannon fire. The ship was sinking and going down, crew ordered to abandon ship.
As it did so, Erich Topp directed his crewmen to continue firing, striking the Atwater's crewmen as they tried to man the lifeboats. When Captain Webster was shot, the crew abandoned attempts to launch the lifeboats and leapt into the sea.

Which happened before the Laconia incident. We're talking about U-boats when they were under orders to not pick up survivors. And it's been debated whether or not Topp's actions were deliberate.

Not nonsense... it DID happen. just not with any regularity. There were TWO confirmed cases. The second case was with Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, Commander of U-852.

Actually, the reviewer was saying Mostow's claims of Das Boot being a lie was nonsense. Note the "from", I omitted parts of their reviews. But thanks for reminding me about the ONE time a U-boat deliberately fired on survivors while under orders not to pick them up.

And as Michael pointed out it happened with us too.

And what's the relevance of this again? The film makes no mention of Americans killing survivors of a submarine attack.

You want to be pissed. You "have a right to be incensed" as it was put.
So you look for excuses to be mad and avoid or ignore reality.

Same could be said about you. You got pretty fired up when I posted excerpts from those reviews. Hopefully, you've now realized how big of an idiot you now look. Hopefully.

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

But, because you insist on making yourself look stupid...

LOL

I am not so anal retentive as to count and compare the minutes into the film at which the scene shows. My point is still valid in that the scene in question is DECIDEDLY NOT the "opening scene" as claimed. Regardless of whether it fell closer to the beginning or the middle. You failed to disprove the point of my comment, only mincing the in-general wording of it.

Speaking of looking stupid...

You should probably re-read the review. The reviewer didn't say "No U-boats targeted Allied survivors during the Laconia incident", he acknowledges the one time a U-boat fired on sailors while the Laconia incident was in effect.

Of course the reviewer did not say that, I DID!
You need to reread both my comment and your own excerpt of the review. The reviewer was not "acknowledging the one time a U-boat fired on sailors while the Laconia incident was in effect". He was stating that the Laconia incident was the only case on record in World War II in which a U-boat purposely fired on survivors in the water.

I spoke in rebuttal of that claim when I STATED that "No U-boats targeted Allied survivors during the Laconia incident".

Then we get into your Erich Topp arguments.

Your argument hinges on two points.
1) that Topp's incident happened before the Laconia order and...
2) that it is debated whether deliberate or not.

Again your ignorance.
1) we are arguing about whether U-boats fired on survivors or not. NOT whether they happened before or after a certain order.

2) Again, that it happened, not whether deliberate or not. Topp himself stated they were firing on the life-rafts. Just as Morton/O'Kane were firing on the life-rafts and not specifically at the men in the water.

The rest of your post is nothing more than trolling.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

I am not so anal retentive as to count and compare the minutes into the film at which the scene shows. My point is still valid in that the scene in question is DECIDEDLY NOT the "opening scene" as claimed. Regardless of whether it fell closer to the beginning or the middle. You failed to disprove the point of my comment, only mincing the in-general wording of it.

Nor does it happen "almost halfway" into a 116 minute film. And of course, you ignored the majority of my comment. I disproved you by pointing out that the scene was unecessary.

Of course the reviewer did not say that, I DID!
You need to reread both my comment and your own excerpt of the review. The reviewer was not "acknowledging the one time a U-boat fired on sailors while the Laconia incident was in effect". He was stating that the Laconia incident was the only case on record in World War II in which a U-boat purposely fired on survivors in the water.

I spoke in rebuttal of that claim when I STATED that "No U-boats targeted Allied survivors during the Laconia incident".

Except he didn't say the Laconia incident was the only time a U-boat purposely fired on survivors. Just like he didn't say "this (machine gunning survivors) is nonsense."

Your argument hinges on two points.
1) that Topp's incident happened before the Laconia order and...
2) that it is debated whether deliberate or not.

Again your ignorance.
1) we are arguing about whether U-boats fired on survivors or not. NOT whether they happened before or after a certain order.

2) Again, that it happened, not whether deliberate or not. Topp himself stated they were firing on the life-rafts. Just as Morton/O'Kane were firing on the life-rafts and not specifically at the men in the water.

Wrong again. The reviewer was talking about U-boats purposely firing on lifeboats.

Topp was already surfaced and firing his deck guns when he sunk the SS David H. Atwater. He also attacked at night, making it difficult to see the survivors. Morton surfaced after sinking his target and deliberately gave the order to fire on the lifeboats. By the way, wasn't the Captain in this film deliberately firing on the British sailors and not the lifeboat?

The rest of your post is nothing more than trolling.

So that's how you respond to being proved wrong? I knew you couldn't rebuke me.

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

While you are not a troll, By the style and method of your arguments, you are clearly afflicted with CMS which is just as bad and as frustrating as arguing with a troll.

Trolls do what they do on purpose to cause trouble. You are not doing that. You believe your own logic.

CMS, (Conspiracy Mindset Syndrome) Is not strictly relating to those who believe in outlandish conspiracy theories (9/11 truthers, etc..) But to any who use and follow the same style of illogical arguments to "prove" their case.

1) Ignore the points made by the opposition while continuing to spout the same disproved points over and over.

2) Using illogical fallacies to "prove" their case.

3) Claim the opposition never faced their points when in fact the opposition not only faced them but countered them.

4) Hold an impossibly high burden of proof for the opposition's evidence but the burden of proof for their own is simply their belief in it's being true.

Gsbr,

I have only argued with you this long because I know you are not a troll. but at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree. I won't ignore you because you have made other good posts on this and other boards. But keep this up after I called to agree to disagree and I will have to ignore you.

I have just wrapped up a session of arguing on another thread concerning an evenly more inflicted person of CMS than even you (yours is mild). Over buoyancy and density. I have not the energy nor patience to keep arguing with you.

P.S.

Oh yeah....
5) will claim that an opponent leaving an argument is "proof" that they are right and the opposition was wrong.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

1) Ignore the points made by the opposition while continuing to spout the same disproved points over and over.

2) Using illogical fallacies to "prove" their case.

3) Claim the opposition never faced their points when in fact the opposition not only faced them but countered them.

4) Hold an impossibly high burden of proof for the opposition's evidence but the burden of proof for their own is simply their belief in it's being true.

You didn't respond, yet alone disprove these points:

Mostow believes U-boat crewmen were all ardent Nazis.

Help would have reached U-571 before the sailors in the lifeboat were picked up.

The lifeboat scene was not crucial towards the plot of the film.

5) will claim that an opponent leaving an argument is "proof" that they are right and the opposition was wrong.

Interesting. A guy I know believed in an outlandish conspiracy theory he made up- and he was the one who left the argument between us, not me.

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

So not only are your sources wrong in that they contradict themselves in saying "it never happened" to "it only happened once"

It happened TWICE and even the one incident cited was the WRONG INCIDENT

Fraking Morons. The lot of you.

When you look for made up excuses to give you the right to justify being mad, you make yourself look like morons.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

The reviewers never said "it never happened."

You should probably stop talking for a while.

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

The reviewers never said "it never happened."

"It is disappointing to see the myth of U-boats executing occupants of lifeboats perpetuated yet again".

He did not use the exact words "never happened" but what the hell do you think he meant by "...the MYTH OF U-boats executing occupants of lifeboats"?

Speaking of stopping talking.
I'd say you should quit while you are ahead, but you never were.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

I'd say you should quit while you are ahead, but you never were.

Smart words from the guy who had no response towards Mostow believing all U-boat sailors were ardent Nazis and the lifeboat execution scene not being crucial towards the plot of the film.

[–] blackjackxxx 14 years ago

Agree wholeheartedly here.

1. The movie is obviously fictional.

2. There is a screen listing of actual incidents and enigma captures by the British and incidentally the U-505 capture, by the Escort Carrier USS Guadalcanal.

3. Indeed, take your overly sensitized psyches and go sue the crap out of the marxist-inspired progressive educational system that has turned you into whining adolescents. Fricking grow up.

Conservatives shape policy to deal with reality. Libprogs reshape reality to match their policies.

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

LOL

One caveat there...
Libprogs {{{TRY TO}}} reshape reality to match their policies.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Koosh_King01 14 years ago

Or they could've avoided all of this and just told the true story using British characters. That they did not puzzles me.

Although I find this movie tedious even on its own merits, I can accept that it is fiction and therefore not an intended slight against anyone, nor an attempt to overplay the US' importance in the war (at least not for any reasons other than entertainment value).

The historical fiction excuse aside, though, the real question is, why did they choose to do this? This film's defenders argue (truthfully) that making the characters American doesn't alter the story much, if at all. But this cuts both ways: it would've been exactly the same type of movie if told with British characters.

So, why do a completely fictional scenario with Americans instead of a "pepped up" rendition of the actual historical British event? They did it with The Great Escape, so what not this?

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

[–] Beuller 14 years ago

Yeh, I agree OP. It's a bit like real life when the mighty USA invaded Iraq. Bush just substituted the words 'oil reserve' for 'WMD's' and we all just enjoyed the explosions and set pieces.

Can't wait for the movie though, when it shows the French liberating Iraq!

DumbAss . . spring's to mind :/