Just plain war. Fighting. Rough stuff.
I don’t know that World War II divided the left and right. I don’t know that Afghanistan severely divided the left and right. Sure, there are always the extreeeeeme leftists (the kind that normal lefties shudder about and disown) who were against those wars, but the leftists I know (including me) who were worried about Afghanistan were thinking that while on the one hand it seemed to be necessary, in order to show the terrorists some backbone (with the added bonus of getting rid of the Taliban), we felt uneasy, that it might be a bad idea because 1) a lot of innocent people would get killed, 2) hello, Afghanistan defeated the Soviet Union (thanks to our help), 3) excited talk of “bombing them back into the Stone Age” was pretty silly, since Afghanistan already WAS bombed back into the Stone Age so what possible difference could we make? and 4) more killing wouldn’t bring back the dead of Sept. 11.
In other words, while I can’t speak for all the lefties out there, in general we were not so much anti-war when it came to Afghanistan, but pro-something-has-to-be-done-but-damn,-this-whole-situation-is-Not-Good.
Iraq, that’s a whole other thing. Of course it divides the left and the pro-war right. As it should. A stupid, unnecessary, horrifically costly (both in lives and money) war that took the focus off of Afghanistan (where’s Osama, George?) and was bungled and became a terrible mess. A LOT of us foresaw much of this before it happened and we got called traitors for speaking out about it. Of course most leftists are going to be against the Iraq war. You bet it would divide us. People who were and are against it were in the right all along. People who have and do support it are wrong, then and now. That’s how I feel and I’m sure not going to meet anyone halfway on that. That’s like trying to meet someone who says the earth is flat halfway (“maybe it is flat. I don’t believe it is, but I respect your opinion”). To hell with that.
In any case, that’s a hijack and none of this has anything to do with the movie, because the movie itself doesn’t take a left or right stance on the Iraq War. The war is what it is and there are no anti-war protests or political slogans or pontificating or anything that would brand it a “Liberal Hollywood Agenda” film. It’s about the Stop Loss policy, and how it affects one particular family.
[QUOTE=Equipoise]
“Sorry, I haven’t seen that movie, don’t remember any brouhaha over it, and don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Not to deflect your thread,but to give you a hint about the movie,the actor who portrays R.Reagan is married to Barbra Streisand,one of your paramount Tinseltown lib'rul types.[QUOTE=Carson O’Genic]
And they tried to imply that God didn’t speak directly with Reagan!
-Joe
I seem to recall quite a fuss here over the broadcast of the film “Stolen Honor” by Sinclair stations. Nearly everyone posting on the subject hadn’t seen the film.
I really don’t think I have to see every movie in theaters to have opinions on them, or even particular films I haven’t seen. And if these movies create a political debate, I don’t think someone who hasn’t seen the film should be shut out of the debate.
Ah, the venerable old standby: “But some people on your side did it too!” The two-wrongs-make-a-right crowd never get tired of it.
Depends how they involve themselves in the debate. If they argue as if they have seen the film, when they haven’t, then they’re being disingenuous as best. And, to be quite honest, there are some things you simply can’t comment on with any credibility unless you’ve actually seen the film.
You can talk about the film’s reception and about its political significance in the wider culture, but you can’t speak with any authority on the content of the film itself if you merely rely on the summaries of other people.
Note what I said about these discussions in general.
I didn’t say it was wrong - I just noted that these discussions often progress on the basis of secondhand understanding of the subject material. I’m sure few of us have watched the entirety of Birth of a Nation. That doesn’t mean we all can’t mention it with some credibility.
Now, certainly individual comments can be flat out wrong, or can display an incomplete view. But that doesn’t mean they ought to be dismissed out of hand if the person hasn’t actually seen the film.
Most of what we know is based on secondhand knowledge at best. You can’t dismiss this out of hand - we wouldn’t be able to speak of much if we did. ANd reading a review of a movie or a news story about it conveys significant information, doesn’t it? Certainly this coverage is seen as important by most people - it forms the basis of a lot of criticism and news about the entertainment field.
I think you’re taking an absolute view that isn’t particularly necessary, considering that these comments can be evaluated individually, and ought to be.
Ah- Godwin’s little brother - the longer a debate runs, the greater the likelihood that somebody will mention the Klan 
While your point is well taken regarding Birth of a Nation, this is hardly a parallel scenario. Everyone knows the basic premise and story of BOAN; I doubt 90% of the people Equipoise is talking about have read so much as a precis of the plot.
To quote John Stuart Mill:
Yes, grammatical nitpicks will prove you’re not in the same league as lekatt. :rolleyes:
Something you prove just about every time you post.
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard all day.
No, despite the presence of posters such as yourself I’ve actually toned it down quite a bit.
And in case anyone should misinterpret my post to Stringer above, I should probably have inserted a 
at the end as it was meant jokingly.
Just to be clear, Mill was not a “liberal” in the modern American sense. He was a classical liberal, who advocated both social and economic freedom. His book, On Liberty, was an important influence on Mises and others.
Maybe, but I hates Mises to pieces.
Granted, but the Conservatives he was bashing are pretty much the same as the Conservatives of today. There are plenty of non-stupid Conservatives (as evil as I believe Karl Rove to be, he is not stupid). But most conservative electoral victories of the recent past have depended on getting less-than-bright people to vote against their own economic self-interest by distracting them with “social” issues that have little impact on their own lives.
’luci, you know the drill. Report to the nearest lamppost or tall tree. Bring your own rope. If we’re late, start without us…
I find your self-evaluation flawed. Take it from me; you’re about as full of shit as ever.
Trust me, you are one of the least posters around here whose opinion I either care about or value.
Below, I talk about the movie, but no real spoilers (unless you’re the kind of person who doesn’t want to know anything at ALL about a movie before seeing it).
I was reading through the thread again and I caught this. I forgot to address it. Rather, I misunderstood the first time I read it. I thought you meant middle-of-the-road as in being just a decent movie, not destined for greatness or awards. But if you meant middle-of-the-road as in, trying to straddle a political fence and not “taking sides” and being wimpy, that’s not really the case. The movie doesn’t wimp out on the characters’ feelings. They all feel very passionate about what’s going on, but it’s all about the Stop Loss program, not the politics surrounding the war itself.
The most political it gets, that I remember, is that one character, when told Stop Loss was a Bush policy, says “Fuck Bush” which shocks his superior officer. But that’s still not political. Trying to think of a business analogy, that’s like saying, say, “Fuck Smith” about an upper management type who has implemented a company-wide policy that negatively affects your life. That’s not condemning the entire company or the type of work the company does. It’s conveying your frustration to the person in the company who came up with a policy that fucks you over.
These people are Texas stalwarts, living in a small town, living their lives. No one declares themselves to be Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. It wouldn’t occur to them, it would be a screenwriter’s conceit for them to even mention it, which Kimberly Pierce doesn’t do, and it doesn’t matter anyway. Most of them probably are Republicans who voted for Bush but that doesn’t matter. Politics aren’t part of their lives past voting day (which is never mentioned). They’re just normal people living their lives.
But when this specific policy affects a family, when a soldier who’s already served two tours of Iraq and been decorated a hero is Stop Lossed, that affects their lives in a very real and direct way. He did his duty to his country, proudly and with honor. He is now ready to settle down, find a job and a wife, have a family of his own, and he’s called back. He rebels. His parent support his rebellion, but not for political reasons, but because he’s their son, they love him, and are terrified that the law of averages will catch up to him and he’ll come home from a third tour grievously injured or dead.
Not that the Iraq war is hidden in the background. The movie starts in Iraq with a serious gun battle, with some of the lead character’s men getting killed and wounded. Various of the soldier characters have a hard time adjusting when they come home, and those scenes are taken from real experiences real soldiers told Kimberly Pierce about during her interviews. But it’s not politics to show those things, it’s the reality of war, any war. Some are killed or injured, some are not. Some come home with deep psychological problems, some don’t. Some are able to cope with what they saw and did better than others. Some have relationship problems, some don’t. War, any war anywhere, does things to people, changes them in ways they couldn’t have predicted. But by showing some of the negative effects of war still doesn’t make this a political “anti-Iraq” movie.
The movie is neither middle-of-the-road, nor rah-rah flag waving pro-war, nor politically anti-war/government.
It’s hard to explain. Perhaps when it does open someone will see it who is far more articulate than I am and can give their view.