Propaganda at its best - Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ccook9009 18 years ago

i don't see how a film that is true and based on truth can be propaganda. that's just an oxy-moron. i really love this film. it changed my entire perspective on our country's foreign policy. i wish they'd just eliminate the "rules" and just "engage". as long as good people aren't hurt. one of my favorite films. a classic!

reply

[–] jackis-2 18 years ago

Thats not the definition of propaganda. Propaganda is spreading information to change the minds of others. It doesnt have to be honest, but it is not by definition dishonest.

And mab? Where do you go off saying the majority of americans are bad? What do you base that off of? There are 300 million Americans with a wide diverisity of backgrounds who follow nearly all the same laws and ideals that any other 1st world country follows. You obviously are the only one here who is brainwashed by some sort of propaganda from somewhere. You most likely dont even know enough americans first hand from a wide enough cultural spectrum to say something like that. You ought to be ashamed for even being so obtuse. The United States happens to be the only country of its populational mass able to maintain a top class economy, legal system, freedom of communication and mobility, and general access to high quality technology and living benefits when compared to other similarly populated nations. We spend more money on defense than the next 14 nations spend on theirs combined, yet it only makes up 4% of the GDP. Bad/unsuccessful/lazy people do not maintain an economy like that in a country this packed with people. This country didnt get to where it is by luck or chance. The United States didnt become an economic, governmental, and military breakthrough by coincidence. People worked hard to make America what it is. To say it is not a good country or that it has a majority of bad people is simple minded and absurd.

And for the record, the story was written by James Webb, a famous United States Marine who went to the Annapolis Naval Academy followed by tours in Vietnam. He was one of the most highly decorated Americans in that conflict. He was Secretary of the Navy (which also controls the Marine Corps) during the 1980s. Currently he is running for Senator of Virginia for the Democratic party and actively opposed both John Kerry and George Bush saying neither was an ideal choice. He opposes the war in Iraq. So if you somehow think that this is uber gung ho pro america pro-foreign affairs meddling then you are seriously mistaken. If you pay attention, the entire point of the movie is that combatants have to make serious moral decisions valuing the lives of their comrades over the rules of engagement, as well as the extremely weak and poor communication and understanding from the civilian and noncombat world's view on how war is fought. If anything, the point of the movie is that Marines value their comrades lives over the lives of enemies and political agendas, the complete opposite of what you simple minded people have implied. If you dont get that message, you obviously should debate the issue of patriotism (which apparently is EXTREMELY EVIL!!!!) with an armadillo. You might share the same opinions.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill

reply

[–] ccook9009 18 years ago

i agree. "rules of engagement" isn't propaganda because it's true. also armadillos are as patriotic as any other animal. in fact animals are the most patriotic creatures ever. because they usually inhabit one region generation after generation and will even attack you if you try to get in "their space". look at snakes and bears. there are no expatriot animals. for the most part they stay in the same location for life. so arguing with an armadillo over america will not end well. also, don't argue with them about texas either. they love texas.

reply

[–] jackis-2 18 years ago

Not to argue or anything, but armadillos are stupid animals with one of the lowest EQ numbers out there(and yes, i dont mean IQ). Im not sure how an animal can be patriotic, but if they are it certainly wouldnt be an armadillo. They run away or curl up for safety.

Why are animals being talked about here, again? I dont remember. Well, regardless I feel stupid now.

reply

[–] ccook9009 18 years ago

first of all armadillos are patriotic because they don't get in boats and rafts or whatever and travel to another country and relocate there and become part of that region's wildlife. they don't dig tunnels either. they are patriots. they pretty much stay in the central southern states. you'd never find one in france. just like you'd never find a koala in america. they stay in australia because they are very patriotic to that country. they would never live anywhere else. humans move all the time. there are expatriots everywhere. way more humans that are expatriots than animals. that's why animals are more patriotic.

reply

[–] jackis-2 18 years ago

....wth

reply

[–] euroman_35 18 years ago

I don't see this a propaganda. It simply shows the limbo of US foreign Policy between 1990 and 9/11-2001.
The Clinton Administration had simply no idear on howto deal with trouble in the Middle East, The Balkans and Africa.
Somalia 1993, Rwanda 1994, Bosnia 1995, Kenya 1998 and USS Coel 2000. As the film shows in that the Clinton Administration would rather hang Our Marines out to dry, than offending Muslims.

/Fred

I'm a Republican, and thats my opinion on this matter.

reply

[–] esskayess 18 years ago

Why do I have a feeling that this fellow has no problem whatsoever with Mikey Moore's "documentaries?" Nope, no trace of "propaganda" there.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jackis-2 18 years ago

Um....no. Not at all. You got that ENTIRELY wrong, solid102. If anything, this movie is pure ANTIpropoganda because the Marines value each other's lives over the "win foreign hearts and minds" goals of the government. The point was that they were willing to defend themselves and each other at the cost of political correctness. Why should they go out of their way to not to engage the enemy because of race and gender? If they are firing at you, it doesnt matter at all how old or young they are or if they are a woman or not. It is the obligation of all officers and NCOs to preserve the lives of their brothers in arms.

You also fail to remember that the men, women, and children were armed in the movie. It is shown in flashbacks and on the videotape before it is destroyed. You probably should watch it again just to remind yourself. Many enemies in our recent military history have used women and children against us because they know we are reluctant to return fire, but in the end it is far more important for our military to preserve itself rather than appear "nicer".

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jackis-2 18 years ago

Explain how it is al qaeda logic? Al Qaeda does nothing to preserve the lives of its members and they do not follow any rules of warfare. They dont even fight wars, they make sneak attacks. They pretend to be civilians and attack and kill those who cant defend themselves. In the movie, remember, the crowd was armed. Ill say it one more time since you are so ignorant and refuse to remember this poiint. THE CROWD. WAS. ARMED. You see it in the flashbacks and you see it on the embassy tape. They were indeed a danger to his Marines. They RETURNED fire. You accuse me of having faulty logic, while you have absolutely none!

I pray that a draft comes back so you can be sent right there overseas and have your life and the lives of those around you (which you most likely wouldnt be concerned about) in danger from all sorts of enemies and see what you do in that situation. I think itd be the funniest image I can imagine.

reply

[–] hariseldon99 17 years ago

Do the Arabs really have the moral liscense to complain of "racism" in film when these sort of things go on in Arab Cultures:

OFFICIAL SAUDI ARABIA TOURISM WEBSITE:
NO JEWS ALLOWEDhttp://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny09_weiner/022604Saudi.html

Anti-Semitic racism among Arabs

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl102.htm

The Treatment of Jews
in Arab/Islamic Countries by Mitchell Bard
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

Arab propaganda claims Jews spread AIDS

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP32201

Egyptian Government Weekly Reproduces Nazi Propaganda Forgery
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP33902

Saudi Government Daily: The Jews are Taking Over the World
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP32101

Holocaust Denial among Arabs

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/denial_me/default.asp

Anti-Semitism in the Arab world.

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm

Arab Racism against Black Africans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Grand Mufti of Jerusalem aided Nazis in conducting the holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

Bernard Lewis wrote a definitive book on Arab/Muslims' racism towards Jews. Here is a review by Daniel Pipes

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/21

There are more horrific examples of fanatic, genocidal, hateful and quite widespread racism among Arabs against Jews, black Africans, and non-Arab Muslims, as well as apartheid practices in Saudi Arabia:

Arab Apartheid:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/386

Religious apartheid in saudi Arabia:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060221180044/www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/Saudi+Arabia/religious+apartheid+in+sa.htm

if you search on Google.

reply

[–] combatreview 17 years ago

>>>Do the Arabs really have the moral liscense to complain of "racism" in film when these sort of things go on in Arab Cultures:

Oh, don't be so stupid. Howabout I find some racism in YOUR culture and then say you have no moral right to object to racism yourself?

reply

[–] hariseldon99 17 years ago

<quote>
Oh, don't be so stupid. Howabout I find some racism in YOUR culture and then say you have no moral right to object to racism yourself?
</quote>

There may be racism in my culture, but my state does not endorse it, and racism is hardly a mainstream view there.

Arab states endorse and practice racism and apartheid as a mandate, rendering their denizens morally bankrupt unless they actively resist such policies (which they do not; in fact, they are proud of it, and openly espouse fascist ideas of perceived biological superiority over non-Arabs).

reply

[–] combatreview 17 years ago

>>>There may be racism in my culture, but my state does not endorse it, and racism is hardly a mainstream view there

I suspect that point may be argued very easily - in any case it doesn't render your assertion any less idiotic, either way. If a crime is one day committed against you, I very much doubt you would expect others to look at the actions of your government in order to determine the legitimacy of your complain.

Not that I'm particularly interested in your bigotry, incidentally. I do realise that the manifest hatreds you cite are very real - but it's very obvious that you're applying them with malicious intent. Or you're just stupid. I'm sure it's the former.

reply

[–] hariseldon99 17 years ago

I suspect that point may be argued very easily - in any case it doesn't render your assertion any less idiotic, either way

Your suspicions are wrong, and smacks of the ridiculous political correctness and fallacious moral relativism of the western cultural Marxist, identity - politics mongering left wing crazies. Dear gawd, I can't believe I was one of you, until I got "mugged by reality", as Irving Kristol would say...

expect others to look at the actions of your government in order to determine the legitimacy of your complain.

Making a movie is not a crime. The analogy is inapposite. Of course, if somebody shot an Arab because of hatred towards his ethnicity I'd be against it.

but it's very obvious that you're applying them with malicious intent. Or you're just stupid. I'm sure it's the former.

I wonder how much the Saudi lobby paid you to type in that logical fallacy. I hear they pay even more money for some Arab fascist-sympathetic television blurb from some leftist nit.

reply

[–] j30bell 17 years ago

Irving Kristol? The architect of neo-conservatism and the war on Iraq. Pardon me, what “reality” have you been mugged by exactly?

reply

[–] hariseldon99 17 years ago

Kristol is a great man. He tells it like it is (as do most neoconservatives). That is the reality that mugged me. Kristol had nothing to do with the Iraq war. The Iraq war was funded by corporate oil interests. The claim that Neocons were behind the Iraq war is Arab/Muslim propaganda.

I like the fact that Kristol drives the Communists crazy. That alone is reason enough to regard him with respect. Anyone who pisses off a Communist can't be that bad.

reply

[–] combatreview 17 years ago

Spouting cosy irrationalities that you find amusing doesn't make you wise, it just means that your views don't merit respect. Your bigotry is commonplace and tedious.

reply

[–] hariseldon99 17 years ago

it just means that your views don't merit respect

Nor does argumentum ad hominem.

reply

[–] j30bell 17 years ago

>The claim that Neocons were behind the Iraq war is Arab/Muslim propaganda.

Erm, yeah right. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there is absolutely no doubt that the AEI, the CSP and the Hoover Institute (of which Condeleezza Rice is a Senior Fellow) were the leading intellectual forces behind Bush’s response to 9/11. You can read any rightwing or leftwing book on the Bush administration – or just visit the AEI website and trawl through some of their literature from 2000 onwards. It may be William Kristol pushing the agenda these days (along with his buddies Robert Kagan, John Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes) but its no secret where these ideas came from. I mean is it pure co-incidence that the fathers of John and Daniel are Norman Podhoretz and Richard Pipes? These people are neocon aristocracy.

reply

[–] hariseldon99 17 years ago

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there is absolutely no doubt that the AEI, the CSP and the Hoover Institute (of which Condeleezza Rice is a Senior Fellow) were the leading intellectual forces behind Bush’s response to 9/11

Er, you forgot to mention WINEP, JINSA, B'Nai B'Rith, the secret tribunal of Zion, the Freemasons, aliens from the planet Blargon, the Men in Black, or any of the other supposedly "neocon puppeteers secretly controlling the world" (with the implied antisemitic conspiracism touted by left wingnuts these days). It's amusing to watch leftist moonbats toeing the party line every chance they get.

These people are neocon aristocracy

..and that is worse than the left wing aristocracy spreading race-hatred and religious intolerance across the American continent? People and organizations like, oh, say, Noam Chomsky, Eric Margolis, Alison Weir, "Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs", the "American Educational Trust" (read, American far-left propaganda trust), Michael Neumann, the numerous tentacles of the Arab lobby, the vast repository of left wing crackpots, anarchists, and hatemongers disseminating propaganda from American universities and schools, and on and on and on?

Actually, it's refreshing to see a country (I'm actually not an American, believe it or not) where the conservatives have at least SOME voice and are not silenced under pain of death, as they would be in one of your leftist utopias.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 18 years ago

If you don't like this movie then you shouldn't post here.

Terminator: Hasta lavista, baby.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spittle8 18 years ago

You are a damned fool.

We were attacked on 9/11, not by some terrorists or a nation-state, but a people, the Muslim people. Hundreds of millions of Muslims were cheering on 9/12... have you forgotten? We naturally had to retaliate.. I'd rather have taken down Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria, but Iraq is indeed a Muslim nation. We are defending ourselves.

Goebbels was a master of propaganda, and your little quip just demonstrates your foolishness.

They were attacked. They were defending themselves. Everyone in that crowd was a potential threat to them, all of whom were inciting them, and what's more is that they were protecting their attackers. For all I care, they could have annihilated the entire *beep* crowd. Grow up, you silly little fool. The world runs on hate, not liberalism. When someone hits you in the face, you beat them mercilessly, you don't try to reason with them. Ass.

reply

[–] Zeelthor 18 years ago

Honestly, why is there such a post on EVERY SINGLE MOVIE with any connection to these matters.

The movie does not say it's good to shoot at civilians it shows that it happens sometimes when soldiers are confused and scared.

It's not propaganda.
If you do want to see one of Hitler's propaganda videos look up "der evigen juden" or something like that.
Quite interesting.

reply