american soliders hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction, and them not finding much, and questioning where the evidence that brought them to war came from.

I was just wondering what the average American think about the war in Iraq, and how much focus is it on the fact that you went to war for the wrong reasons (Yes I know Hussein was a dictator and tyrant) but still

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

July 11 2010 16:53 GMT

I just watched this last night actually. Matt Damon is pretty much always awesome.

Anyone who knows my views at all already knows what I think about it, and what I think about war in general. It's all about profit.

P.S: the average american doesn't post on tl

zrules

United States88 Posts

July 11 2010 17:05 GMT

the average american doesn't post on tl

That's if there is an Average American.

My thoughts... as an Iraqi who knows of how bad the dictatorship was to the people as well as the wars damages and problems it has caused to Iraq. I have no clue whatsoever.

It's just... eh. The only thing I might say is this: people believe war can spur economic growth, and it can, but at times, it just bankrupts your nation.

And while some people will say, "but Iraq will love being a democratic nation," I say, "Maybe, and maybe they needed such an opportunity to be freed from a tyrannical dictator to do so, but ATM, having your country hugely damaged from a war and having to rebuild can be worse, and as much as democracy is a "good force" to many people, our democracy isn't always anywhere near good and for that matter, democracy doesn't make people good, it can facilitate a method for "ALL" people to be included, but if said people aren't good, then the government is bad (and no, I'm not saying Iraq is evil, just stating a fact)."

So I'm done.

Najda

United States3765 Posts

July 11 2010 17:55 GMT

I find it very hard to believe that USA went to war with/in Iraq for the sole purpose of liberating the country. If that were really the case, then why Iraq? Why not choose one of the many war-torn countries in Africa to help out? A common thought reason we went into Iraq is for oil, and that is what I believe to be true, but I'm very loose with my beliefs because I've done minuscule amounts of research and most of my knowledge is second hand.

101TFP

420 Posts

July 11 2010 18:01 GMT

for me this was just another movie suffering from unnecessarily shaky camera syndrome.

i just don't get why do 90% of modern action movies have extremely shaky camera work and cuts every 0.5 seconds. it's so gdamn annoying.

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

July 11 2010 18:02 GMT

On July 12 2010 03:01 101TFP wrote:
for me this was just another movie suffering from unnecessarily shaky camera syndrome.

i just don't get why do 90% of modern action movies have extremely shaky camera work and cuts every 0.5 seconds. it's so gdamn annoying.

I didn't even notice that.

Lightwip

United States5497 Posts

July 11 2010 18:04 GMT

The USA went to war in Iraq because of 9/11(that's what got people to support it). But a lot of people don't actually like the war and want us to leave.
Interesting movie idea though.

Sadistx

Zimbabwe5568 Posts

July 11 2010 18:08 GMT

It's a pretty terrible movie, and even Damon doesn't save it. The cheesy dialogue and predictable plot are apparent within first 10 minutes of the movie.

And the whole wmd thing has been beaten to hell :/

Lightswarm

Canada967 Posts

July 11 2010 18:12 GMT

On July 12 2010 03:04 Lightwip wrote:
The USA went to war in Iraq because of 9/11(that's what got people to support it). But a lot of people don't actually like the war and want us to leave.
Interesting movie idea though.

9/11 triggered invasion on Afghanistan. Bush (mostly the people influencing him) lied about WMD in Iraq when UN inspectors clearly found no evidence. Of course, US can still invade Iran since they are working on actual nukes.

Lightwip

United States5497 Posts

July 11 2010 18:29 GMT

#10

On July 12 2010 03:12 Lightswarm wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yeah, the US entered entirely without UN support. Some people(read: the government) still supports war in Afghanistan, but not that many people think we should still be in Iraq.

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

July 11 2010 18:47 GMT

#11

On July 12 2010 03:08 Sadistx wrote:
It's a pretty terrible movie, and even Damon doesn't save it. The cheesy dialogue and predictable plot are apparent within first 10 minutes of the movie.

And the whole wmd thing has been beaten to hell :/

What are you talking about? It wasn't that bad at all.

7.1/10 on imdb
4 stars - roger ebert
55% rotten tomatoes 6.2 average rating (not very good but not too bad either)

basically ur opinion sucks or you're way too critical

Sadistx

Zimbabwe5568 Posts

July 11 2010 19:05 GMT

#12

On July 12 2010 03:47 travis wrote:

Show nested quote +

Oh yes, cite a bunch of bullshit "opinion" sites to prove your point. Their opinion sucks more likely than mine :p

Rofl at IMDB ratings. They are so overpumped for movies released after 2007

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

July 11 2010 19:21 GMT

#13

actually forget it maybe you're just being playful lol
anyways yeah opinion is opinion so I guess no point in arguing about it

Sfydjklm

United States9218 Posts

September 03 2010 06:37 GMT

#14

what a horrible movie. Nothing like the trailer too.
Two hours of nothing happening. And whatever something happens it just always something you expect. I think i've forseen how the movie ends as soon as all major characters were introduced.

Sabu113

United States11070 Posts

September 03 2010 07:04 GMT

#15

None of them understand what made the first bourne movie so compelling or why its action was watchable.

Trailer didn't look to compelling.

Sfydjklm

United States9218 Posts

September 03 2010 07:35 GMT

#16

i figure the shaky camera is an industry standard because it makes action scenes either to cut. If you watch behind the scenes stuff ull see how many actors are actually motor skills challenged. And of course it gets reinforced by financial sucess of suh morvies as cloverfield and rec