in changing anyone’s mind about the war in Iraq? Preview link here.
Og, I hope so.
I want my mom to see this.
My brother sent me the link. It blew me away. But it was preaching to the choir.
I doubt it. It’s a documentary with really limited release that’s only going to be seen by people who are already against the war, anyway.
While I can assume from context what it is, could someone give a bit of background on what’s actually in it? Is it well sourced? If instead of a video someone had posted its content, would it get torn to shreds and fall to calls for cites? Is there anything new in there or is it a well made and edited summation?
What exactly is new about this information? That we went to the wrong place? Duh. That people got hurt? We know. That it’s really really sad? Clearly. I think the only thing this movie will do is prove a point about the past. It won’t tell us anything about the present that we don’t already know.
Don’t know. I’m assuming it’s a fleshing out of the trailer, but that’s all I’ve seen.
ETA: I have to assume at this point that anyone who really cared about cites and sources would not have favored the war to begin with, since there was no evidence whatsoever linking Iraq to 9/11 and the actual evidence for Iraq having WMD was so weak. I understand it was voted for because the Bush admin made it a political necessity, but I’m talking about actually favoring it.
This is a bit more than just information. It’s one thing to hear stories about this sort of thing or read the stats. Quite another to see it before your eyes and see his courage in protesting the war.
Watching the votes and the comments from our elected officials juxtaposed with this young solider was powerful to me. Watching the doddering and trembling Robert Byrd pleading with them to not vote yes is also moving.
As far as I’m concerned every member of congress who voted yes and surrendered their moral obligation and duty for the sake of political safety should be voted our of office.
Why do you think it should? It seems to be well done, but it doesn’t seem to present any new info, though maybe it will. It basically seems to attempt to persuade people by showing the tragic story of that one young man. This is not meant to be callous in any way, but, there have been men like him in every war. It’s part of war. I just see the film makers thinking that “WE are so right. If we just make this one film, that’ll show everyone.”
The case was made to go to war. It was voted on. We went. It didn’t go as anticipated. In fact, it was miserably and pathetically botched. It happened. The good news is that Bush can’t be elected again. Amazingly, he was elected in '04. :rolleyes: The major architect of the botching, Rumsfeld, has been history for a while now.
Also, I don’t think a film by Phil Donahue is going to do anything except, as another person mentioned, preach to the choir. The best thing he could do is actually take his name off the film.
It’s the story of Tomas Young, who was paralyzed by a bullet in the spine about a week after arriving in Iraq. It’s a look at his life after his injury, getting married, becoming an anti-war activist, and saying goodbye to his brother who was going to Iraq. Here’s an interview with him:
Oh, and as to your other question, it’s not really anything “citable” or sourceable. It’s about Young’s coming to terms with his paralysis.
Could you take a momemt to explain to me why it is that those that agree with the war are close minded after we were hit on our own soil on 9-11? Can you even explain such a statement?
The case for war was pressured (not to say coerced) out of the intelligence communities, misrepresented to the public and most of Congress, and politically forced onto Congress-critters by the Bush Administration by suddenly manufacturing an “Iraq crisis” in late August 2002. I remember it very well, because I remember thinking that it was all too convenient that all of this was ‘coming out’ just in time to spread fear for the midterm elections. And it worked.
I thought it might be possible that if well-meaning people who still are in the habit of believing that “the president knows best” could see and hear a young man who was both in Iraq and suffered greatly for his service, because clearly this wouldn’t be coming from some “bleeding heart liberal.” Maybe I’m wrong. Sometimes when you’ve been defending an indefensible position for a long time, the only thing you feel you can do is to stick to your guns and never admit mistakes, especially those aimed primarily at enriching your corporate CEO buddies while pushing an ideological agenda that was quite proudly based on the world as they wanted to see it (“we make our own reality,” as one White House staffer who had apparently overly bought into visualization as a success technique boasted).
Uh…because the people who hit us on 9/11 have nothing to do with Iraq, whatsoever?
If we wanted to attack a country after 9/11 the best bet would have been Saudi Arabia.
Because we invaded the wrong country? The invasion of Afghanistan was NOT protested by most of us, because they were hosting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who actually WERE responsible for 9/11.
Invading Iraq was wrong because Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. He hated them. He kept them out of the areas of Iraq that were under his control. He was a secular ruler and didn’t want the Wahhabis taking over Iraq like they had Saudi Arabia.
If the same people made a movie that showed someone tragically crippled during the invasion of Normandy, and showed how his life was ruined and followed him as he struggled to with life, would that change your opinion on WWII? How about if we made a movie showing the impact on the families of the 700+ people killed in an accident during the run-up to D-Day? Or the thousands of people killed and maimed during the failed Operation Market Garden?
Movies that attempt to trigger emotional responses in you by showing this kind of thing are propaganda. Even if the Iraq war has been the best thought-out, most justified war in history, and had been carried out to perfection, there would still have been innocent people killed and soldiers crippled. That happens in war. So making a movie about the the impact of war on any individual or group of individuals says absolutely nothing about whether the war was right or wrong.
Now, maybe the movie makes all kinds of other good points against the Iraq war, but those points could also be made without resorting to crude emotional appeals.
If the movie is only about his injuries and his life after the war, I agree. But I got the idea (possibly mistakenly) that the movie will be covering a lot about his experience in Iraq: the war’s necessity, the military’s effectiveness, the Iraqi people’s response, and so forth. Yes, there will always be casualties in war, and they alone should not be the deciding factor. But they always should be the thing that makes war a last result rather than a first reaction or, worse yet, an unprovoked initiative.
We were told that the situation with respect to WMDs in Iraq was so urgent that we couldn’t afford to wait six months to allow Hans Blix et al to finish their inspections to determine if in fact Iraq had any. I’d like to hear this young man’s take on whether his orders once he arrived reflected that kind of concern. Because my understanding is that we made no effort whatsoever to attempt to immediatly control the places that the administration was claiming were WMD stock piles or manufactories as soon as we went in, and you’d think after all that sound and fury, that would have been a major priority. To me, that suggests that it wasn’t just a mistake, it was an out and out lie. But perhaps this young man knows more and better; I wasn’t there and I don’t know what orders they received.
I actually agree with you about that, insofar as I dislike appeals to emotion as a tactic. For that reason, I would not watch this film on purpose.
Besides, there’s no need for me to change my opinion on Iraq, I already disagree with the war.
Sorry, I just don’t see it. I don’t see why this young man is more of an expert on what should have been done than the President or members of the Senate. He, unfortunately, knows first hand about the horrors of being in a war. But whether a war should be fought or not—he has zero expertise on that. I mean, if I made a movie about a guy who was similarly wounded and he had personally concluded that we did the right thing, that would carry the same weight to me. Next to none.
Sam Stone and 5-HT, well said.
I can’t remember the last time I met someone who supported the war. Even die hard conservatives kind of look away and scratch their head and say, "yeah, that’s quite a mess . . . "