MovieChat Forums > Charlie Wilson's War (2007) Discussion > Movies like this make me SICK to my stom...

Movies like this make me SICK to my stomach!


Just as you think America has stopped demonising the Soviets/Russians, another pile of crap like this comes along. "Oh yea, poor Afghans, they were run over with tanks, Russians made the parents watch as they cut their children's troats"-are we all really supposed to buy this crap?! Its obviously all anti-communist and anti-Russian propaganda. We know what happened in Afghanistan; ok, so Russians/Soviets did do a lot of killing BUT what did the extremist militant Afghan islamists do?? Did they just sit with flowers in their hands or did they try to destroy everything the Soviets gave them, the highways, better education, industry, more freedom etc?

Yeah, here comes the GOOD AMERICAN, your very own national pride Tommy Hanks. And ofc, who else is with him but the national icon mrs. Roberts! They are both there to prove that Americans are humans and GOOD humans while Soviets are savages and subhumans. Very convenient indeed, but where is the truth? Where are the movies about what the GOOD AMERICANS did in Central America? Oliver Stone was the only American director who had the BALLS to make a movie about that and all kudos to him. But no, why waste more time and money making movies which CRITICISE USA's sacred government when its easier and better to make movies which GLORIFY it and vilify communists.

My theory on Feds is that they're like mushrooms: feed them *beep* keep them in the dark.

reply

This movie takes place in the 80s during the Cold War when anti-communist rhetoric was a major part of the political landscape. I believe the film is trying to capture this sentiment rather than spread "anti-Russian propaganda." Do you also think 'Schindler's List' is merely an anti-German propaganda piece?


reply

You are right, the Soviet Empire was good and Communism was a democratic and peace-loving ideology... LOL

reply

You correct, still its ironic that the US is still embroiled in a seemly endless war in Afganistan. Many in the know think that as soon as we pull out, the Taliban will take power again, perhaps with Pakistani aid.

The 25 year anniversery of Charlie Wilson's War is filled with irony.

Its an entertaining film with some great politacal characatures, but I would argue that CW's efforts are overstated in the demise of the Soviets in Afganistan. The cost of the ongoing war, regardless of whether or not they were winning, was bleeding the Soviet Union's economy dry by 1986.

reply

First of all, the Soviets just didn't "invade" Afghanistan. They were brought in to response to the Saur Revolution, to help out the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. You know, just like how America entered Vietnam to "help" South Vietnam? That is the truth. American propaganda basically called it "Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" to demonize the Soviets and communism. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, there were killings by the Soviet soldiers, but then again, it was war. Civilians casualties were expected. Just like how American soldiers basically burned the entire village of some remote Vietnamese village down into the ground.

Soviet Union was already a broke nation by the 80s. The Afghan War was basically a final nail in the coffin to Soviet Union because the war bled Soviets to the point where they were desperate to ending the war by 1986, regardless of the situation in the Afghanistan.

reply

That was a ridiculous pretext for the Soviet invasion. The idea that the Afghan people, devout muslims, would choose a government of Stalinist Communism is laughable. It sounds like you bought into the Soviet propaganda. "They were brouht in"? who brought them in?

My theory as to why the Soviets invaded Afganistan; they saw constant weakness from the Carter Administration on foriegn affairs, as displayed in the Iran Hostage Crisis, and Carter's own failure to get a one-sided pro Soviet Salt 2 Treaty passed by a Democratic controlled Senate. When a Stalinist regime perceives weakness, they become agggresive.

I'm not going to defend the Vietnam War, as it was started by the types that would have led us to nuclear holocaust. But if we can't agree that the Stalinist Communist Soviet Union was a cancer on humanity that needed to be eliminated at any cost short of nuclear war, we probably can't agree on anything. The US has done evil in foriegn policy, but never anything on the scale of the countless atrocities committed by the USSR in its 70 year history.

reply

"who brought them in? "

The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Yes the very own Afghan people requested help from Soviet Union, and the Soviets responded to their request prior to the revolution in Afghanistan.

reply

"The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Yes the very own Afghan people requested help from Soviet Union, and the Soviets responded to their request prior to the revolution in Afghanistan."

LOL!!!

reply

Of course, the ignorant amerikunts wouldn't see the truth. Soviets were brought in as liberators and the glorious Soviets tried to educate these desert dwelling primitives.

Keep in mind that the Soviets didn't drops bombs on every single civilians that they encountered just like what the amerikkka did back in Iraq.

reply

Of course, americans wouldn't see the truth to this. You were taught to hate anything related to communism, therefore, Russia was just evil nation and any communist conuntries were automatically deemed evil.

Such a primitive thinking is the reason why americans are hated all over the world today.

Geopolitics isn't american's forte, when your people divide the entire world with logic of black and white, good and evil, righteous and condemned.

reply

Geopolitics isn't american's forte, when your people divide the entire world with logic of black and white, good and evil, righteous and condemned.

And yet, when certain American politicians and diplomats try "realpolitik" or "nuance", they are condemned as immoral monsters. Kissinger, for example.

reply

That's not why the Soviets invaded. Soviet Union had a long history with Afhgan providing billions,modernization, infrastructure,etc. You can look at the pictures when a Soviet backed government ruled Afghanistan compared to the hell hole now.The Soviet backed government was in danger of being overthrow by the
Mujahadeen so they repeatedly requested help from Soviet Union. Soviet Union has a history of control of the countries around its border like any country and they didn't want it to fall to Muslim psychos.

The irony is if US didn't get involved then Afghanistan would be a modern with infrastructure and 9/11,Al Qaeda,etc would have never happened. And most of these Muslim psycho's wouldn't have risen.All these secular regimes were backed by Soviet Union. But US came in and inadvertently messed up Iran,Afghanistan,etc. Creating a vacuum of terrorist groups and states.





Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

Your second paragraph is a huge reach. I think your post in general, ignores the context of the Cold War. From the American and NATO perspective, as well as much of the international human rights community, "Soviet-backed" States, or puppet states (which is what they really were), were not recognized as legitimate. They were widely condemned for large scale atrocities.

The model was typically that the Soviets would select a corrupt leader which they could manipulate, then arm his regime to the teeth. This pattern of Soviet imperialism engulfed much Africa, and is a root problem of all the genocides that have occurred there over the past 20 years. This is how hundreds of thousands of AKs got onto the African Continent.

As far as Afganistan goes, the savage war with the Soviets is responsible for radicalizing the Mujahadeen. OBL's ideology and rise to prominence occurred purely as a result of the Soviet invasion and the subsequent war. So, to summarize, the full scale Soviet invasion of Afghanistan unified and radicalized much of the Muslim world into Jihad (first against the Soviets, then, after the First Gulf War, against the West). The Soviet invasion was only defensible when viewed through the prism of absurd and outdated propaganda.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people forget the nature of the Stalinist USSR and the myriad of large scale atrocities it commited, at home and abroad. The US was certainly not without blame in those years, but by and large, we were fighting the good fight. I was never a fan of Reagan, but when he said the Soviets were not to be negotiated with, they were to be defeated, he hit the bull's eye. The dire poverty and stiffling political corruption in most of Eastern Europe and parts of the former USSR is a large part of the legacy of the Soviet Union.

Its unbelievably misguided to buy into the absurd propaganda of a now extinct regime, just because you hate the US.

reply

Good fight?LOL! Neither side is a saint and both US and Soviet Union committed atrocities. Africa suffered from European colonialism and Soviet Union provided the weapons to fight them off.Of course US or Soviet Union didn't do things because they were good but because it was about power. To profess either side as good and evil would mean you're quite brainwashed. A government like a corporations does things for the elite and rulers.If they actually lived up to their ideas we wouldn't have so many wars,revolutions,mass murders,etc.

I agree that the problems that currently face Eastern Europe is part of the failure of Soviet Union. And the success of US and Western Europe has to do with colonialism,slavery, neocolonialism,genocide,drug market,etc. Eastern Europe is what Western Europe would look like without colonialism. It just shows how brainwashed you're to call Soviet Union evil but ignore the atrocities that Western Europe and US committed on a world wide scale also for elites and corporations. Smedley Butler put it best.


“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”



Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

Well, I'm not going to argue the Afghan point any further.

You are right, the American government and the CIA did a lot of really bad things during the Cold War. Granted, it was mostly out of desperate fear of the spread of Stalinist Communism. The point that Goldwater made "excess.....is no vice", sort of ruled the day.

I don't consider myself brain-washed whatsoever. When I was twenty years younger, I would have agreed with everything in your post and then some. Time and a better sense of context has taught me that the USSR truly was a cancer on humanity, and getting rid of it was imperative at any cost, short of atomic war. So, on that count, America was fighting the "good fight". That said, America has engaged in unprovoked wars, and I believe our ex-President and his cabinent should be tried as war criminals. Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been an absolute disaster. I agree with your points about our imperial tradition as well.

So, I have no delusions of the US having the moral high ground in regards to any Nation at the current time.

But I do believe that the defeat of Fascism as well as the defeat of Stalinism were just causes.

reply

Just as the American government would and already has several times invaded Mexico in order to prevent a country in turmoil and revolution threaten the security of American borders and financial interests, so too the Soviet government invaded and tried to pacify a state in turmoil on their southern border.

This is just Geopolitics 101, nothing new or especially dastardly in historical terms. So perhaps it's best to leave all the sermonizing about Evil and Godless Communism aside.

And to continue an analogy - suppose Mexico is in turmoil and the US mounts an invasion to pacify the country, but then the Soviets back Mexican insurgents and send arms. How long would it take before the US threatened nuclear war? And don't forget Cuba and how the US reacted to a far far less threatening situation in 1963.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yea US is paying heavily for overthrowing secular regimes around the world. These Islamists crept up all over the place. And they're a cancer on the world.





Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

[deleted]

The Afhan people wanted to be left alone. They didn't need the communist regime to tell them what to do, but when they resisted, the Soviets started shooting at them with their mighty weapons.
The USA is built on freedom and they couldn't stand by and let the Afhan people rot away while the Soviets were taking over. That would have been a bad sign to the rest of the world. They HAD to intervene.

They did good.

reply

Only a completely ignorant moron would support the Soviet Union's actions in the war. I am so glad it was the people of Afghanistan who finally destroyed them once and for all. All hail the Afghans

reply

It wasn't the Afghans who destroyed them, it was the system. Everything was corrupt and oppressive, so everyone took to the bottle to escape it. Nobody did what they were supposed to. The military even drank antifreeze to get drunk. The Soviet U-boat that hit a ground in the Stockholm archipelago in 1982 did so according to it's captain due to an error in navigation. That is probably just what happened, cause they were all probably drunk!

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..." - Roy Batty, Blade Runner

reply

You support Islamist extremists?

reply

How very true, the enemy isnt necessarily abroad but that which comes from within and unfortunately the world is corrupted and we all have these enemies from within wreaking havoc, greed and destruction from without in our own home soils by ideelogical insideous miltaristic, aristocratic nut cases.

Its all made legal and so the wars continue and occupation bases also to continue ad infintum wars without end or as Bush Jnr said in a press interview years ago WAR is PEACE!
The IRON Mountain report perhaps?

Geopolitical war games and insideous strategy financed for monteary and power at expense of sanctity and anti-human lives and habitat of enviroment.

The New World Order is same as Old World Order agenda and its filthy illuminated thinking of insanity to exploit, dominate, control and exterminate for all resources until tihere is nothing left and just as always before through out HIS tory this great civilisation shall fall and collapse as all others have.

The world wide Mafia are nothing compared to the Vatican and Jesuit order of freemasonary servants married to their own *beep* intrigue and secrets of knowledge and education above and beyond reproach of laws made by themselves.

reply

Just as you think America has stopped demonising the Soviets/Russians, another pile of crap like this comes along.
I think you've missed the point if you think this is an anti- Soviet film. The fact is, whether you like it or not, the movie has an historical basis in the Cold War and the Soviet Afghan adventure of the late 70's and early to mid 80's. The Soviets themselves are rarely seen. I would have thought the film, especially taking into account it's final scenes, is more of a warning of what can occur, sometimes many years later, when competing super powers start meddling in the affairs of independent countries with complex, unfathomable cultures.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Every country has a lot of bs propaganda.

reply