MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Propaganda at its best

Propaganda at its best

posted 21 years ago by gothic-2
138 replies | jump to latest

I am sure that Hitler would be proud to have Hollywood instead of his Propaganda Office. When a movie where "good" armed-to-the-teeth marines execute "evil" citizens throwing stones and wielding 2 AK-47s, gets a warm welcoming, then hell, everything is permitted on this planet as long as it's the US troops getting killed. It's a movie to justify soldiers killing people defending their lands, something that happens every day.
When we were fighting against the Nazis, they were the criminals and we were the heros. Now thanks to Hollywood, the ones invading are the Heros and the defenders are conviniently renamed to terrorists. Replace "Arian Race" with "Need more Oil" and "Preemptive War" and there you have it.

What a total piece of crap.

WMD anyone?

[–] adamkrentz 20 years ago

Oh and by the way...how is attacking an embassy defending your country?

It's not...STFU

They attacked the embassy, we sent in THE UNITED STATES MARINES(best of the best) to "show the flag"(if you knew anything about US History(military or not) you would understand what that term means). When THE UNITED STATES MARINES(people PROTECTING you this very moment) were fired upon, they fired back. And being the FAR superior force that THE UNITED STATES MARINES are(to any other force for that matter) eliminated every last one of the ENEMY.

On to current events...

Now, Bush is an idiot and sent us into this war...BUT THE US FORCES ARE NOT GOING TO STAND THERE AND LET THE ENEMY(insurgents) kill them. And until US Forces are pulled out of there, we will continue to elimate every last one of the insurgents WHO PLANT IED's TO KILL US FROM A DISTANCE(cowards), WHO SET UP AMBUSHES AND BURN AND RAVAGE THE DEAD BODIES OF AMERICANS(is that neccesary to "defend" your homeland? NO, would we every do that to an enemy? NO!!), WHO INVOLVE THEMSELVES WITH TERRORIST UNITS TO KILL INOOCENT CIVILIANS FROM ALL OVER THE CHRISTIAN WORLD, WHO BLOW THEMSELVES UP IN GROUPS OF IRAQI CHILDREN(their OWN people of their OWN faith WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING TO HURT THEM, is that defending your country?). Let the *beep* jihad terrorists burn to death and let em have their 70 or whatnot virgins.

[–] combatreview 20 years ago

Thankyou, that's very clear and lucid and has definitely assisted the debate.

[–] clones_8705 20 years ago

wtf is the original poster on about childers was there to protect the embassy which is american *beep* soil whether you like it or not they weren't invading *beep* and these other *beep* we're shooting the *beep* outta the place and killing people now im not saying firing into the crowd was the best course of action but maybe that's why he didn't get away without a charge in the end goddamn some of these imdb wankers wanna sound so smart and politically minded using words like properganda and making connections that aren't there between films and political issues doesn't make you smart, then u'll go off saying some *beep* about how your against war well im not for it either but if some *beep* wants to shoot at me for no reason i'll kill the *beep*

[–] spittle8 18 years ago

AMEN BROTHER! *beep* A! Well said!

[–] okane9181 20 years ago

Just so you know gothic2 a US embassy is considered american soil so in fact they were attacking us, we were not invading them.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Paredes 19 years ago

"US involvement in Arab countries is imperialist, and usually has to do with oil"?

If we invaded Iraq for cheaper oil, why does it cost more? That line of thinking is as ludicrous as Venezuelan President Chavez's belief that the U.S. intends to invade HIS country. Why would we do that, for cheaper drugs?

[–] culwin 19 years ago

Also, many things are as profitable if not more so than oil. And just as necessary for the U.S.
Milk costs more per gallon than oil; why are we not invading other countries for their dairy cows? Why are we not invading countries for their other various industries?

[–] DJoffe 19 years ago

Wars are usually fought over limited resources. Most experts believe that we'll run out of affordable oil within 40 to 100 years. Nobody believes that we'll run out of milk.

Regarding the "but oil prices are high now" logical fallacy: The current oil price peaks are just "noise" on the overall curve. You can't judge the general trend in the oil price by looking only at month-to-month ups and downs. There are other factors that affect the price, such as deliberate production/price manipulation, speculation and temporary drops in (expected) production (e.g. hurricane damage ... note that oil-producing countries have all been taking in massive, record profits the past year or two - it would appear the market is being manipulated.) Even so, nobody can say what the long-term price of oil would have been had it not been for the war --- for all we know, it might have been even higher.

[–] culwin 19 years ago

"Nobody believes that we'll run out of milk."

Cows don't just grow on trees.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] r2film 19 years ago

I hear this all the time: "We went to war for oil... Grrrrr...!!!"
And, big shock, there isn't a single shred of evidence, even anecdotal evidence, to back the statement up. All that exists are the OPINIONS of some politicians and actors (and God knows, THEY are all educated in history and poli-sci), and the chumps in charge of the leftist propoganda-disseminating news media. But again, these opinions (cite as many as you want... they're still not facts) just don't count as evidence of the argument.

[–] emilyatau 19 years ago

I'm going to have to disagree. In general, most movies I've seen that feature U.S. Marines are incredibly complicated in their depiction of them. This one clearly showed the awful truth about what happened when the Marines were sent in to defend the Embassy - dead women and children, hospitals full of wounded kids - I don't think that portrays them as heroes.

In A Few Good Men you've got the stereotypical cracked up Colonel who puts the Corps ahead of everything else. Again, not such a pretty picture.

Full Metal Jacket, I don't think I need to say more than the title with that one.

High Crimes - you've got a highly trained Marine who goes on a killing rampage and some corrupt Marines who are trying to cover their own asses. The USMC loses all around in this one.

I would say that the Marine Corps gets unfair treatment in Hollywood - they aren't made into heroes like you say.

Now, the Army, that may be a different situation, there's rarely much complexity involved when a movie is made about the Army.

[–] emilyatau 19 years ago

Well, technically our Embassies are considered U.S. soil. And those have certainly been attacked a time or two in the last 100 years. Also, every U.S. citizen who is abroad is still afforded the protection of the U.S. Constitution, so defending U.S. citizens abroad would also be protecting the Constition on foreign land.

Those clarifications having been made, I do agree with you that there is room in the U.S. for "Pinko's" - especially if we've made room for the KKK and Prussian Blue, www.prussianblue.com However, no one ever said we had to like each other.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emilyatau 19 years ago

I'm sorry - did you actually WATCH this movie? "Throwing stones"? "TWO AK-47's"? The pictures of the crowd showed everyone, men, women, children, firing VARIOUS weapons. And Yemen clearly IS a training ground for terrorism - I think world events have established that.

I am just as against the war in Iraq as the next person, but calling our TROOPS terrorists and criminals isn't exactly neccessary. Blame the powers that be, not the ones following orders - you have no idea what circumstance may lead a person to join the military - if you bothered to ask, you'd find a lot of them are against our policies too!

"It's a movie to justify soldiers killing people defending their lands, something that happens every day." - I think you may have over-simplified the situation, here.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hdny42 19 years ago

I think the real training ground for terrorism is Bahrain. It just recruited Michael Jackson to live there! If that's not scary, tell me what is? They're CLEARLY up to no good! (And you thought YEMEN was bad!)

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry, mission accomplished."

[–] trpdean 19 years ago

I find Gothic's comment quite odd because it's simply congtrary to the facts of this movie. This movie shows dozens and dozens of people in a square shooting at Marines - including children, women, old people. So I don't know where he gets the idea of "evil citizens throwing stones and wielding 2 AK-47s".

Perhaps he's confusing this with some other movie.

In those one, we clearly see on both the tape and the flashback most people in this crowd shooting at Marines -- including that girl wit one leg we repeatedly see. Thus, Jackson's character was quite right in believing that most of the fire was from the square.

So if Marines on sovereign property of any nation can't reutrn fire, I'm baffled about how he believes any nation can evver send diplomatic personnel abroad.

[–] lasombra82 19 years ago

I would like to say thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion, it has been truly informative as well as entertaining. I would especially like to thank all of you who have kept a level head throughout the entire thread, you have restored a faith I was beginning to lose. The faith that differences could be calmly, quietly and non-violently meted out with logic, reason, and facts rather than arguing, shouting, and name-calling(although some of this was done, not everyone was drawn in to the fight).
The lesson to walk away from all of this with is that everyone sees the world through different eyes. Never in the history of mankind has there been an issue with only one side. Communication is the key to understanding, and a small part of that has been done on boards like this. This is not to say that anyone who reads this thread will have their opinions reinforced or changed in anyway, but maybe to say that they will come out of this with a better understanding of the situation from all sides, be able to make a better educated decision, and reinforce their stand point with logic.
To some the pursuit of reason is considered weak. To some it doesn't matter who is the most correct, only who is the loudest. This mentality is the source of my lost faith. This behavior can be seen in many families as well as many governments. The greatest strength one can possess is patience. This is not a quote by anyone this is a view I have held on to for as long as I can remember. Through this patience one can understand a view point, maybe sympathize and find that war(be it inter-family or inter-nation) may in fact not be the best option, but perhaps the last option when all else has failed.
Thank you again to all who participated, and I sincerley hope that everyone who reads these posts will have learned something from it

Sorry if It sounded a little preachy

[–] oceanspray66 19 years ago

One thing I will add that has annoyed me throughout reading some of these posts, is this anti- american stance taken, not because of the actions in of 'terry childers' in this movie but what appears to be deep down distaste for the actual government. this movie is not propaganda. what this move tells us is that the responsibility lies way beyond the infantry but with those who never even walk a battle field deciding how you should act and react. this movie was by no means about america being blameless, it was about how blame should be shouldered throughout the ranks rather than scapegoating. the vietnamese colonel saluted childers because he saw a man he could respect, he looked beyond the man that shot his friend and comrade, this short scene encapsulates the other side of what the story is about, that what our soldiers go through is not a simple process, it is not something that those who have never been to war can truly understand, and only those who have done the same can comprehend the difficult decisions these men and women make and ultimately live with. so prey tell, how does a story which, focuses on the difficult decisions of war and the blame which goes beyond one man, become a film of propaganda?
finally, i do believe some of you missed the whole scene where we actually see the crowd shooting on the video. this did in fact make them an armed threat rather than civilians!