02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicWhoever stated that was getting the point completely muddled.
I was using wrong terminology. No country, including Canada, 'minimally' contributed in WW2, as all contributions accounted for the eventual destruction of Fascism; however, I take issue with these 'clowns' who get their History from Turner Classic Movies and deduce that because John Wayne killed 30 Japanese singlehandedly on Iwo Jima, Americans think they must have won the war 'single-handedly'...🙄
As I understand it, mostly because hollywood dominates the movie industry, almost all WWII movies show the american perspective with little or no regard to the other allies.
The most notable exceptions to this are the movies produced in the post-war period. Indeed, there's one, the name of which escapes me, about the D-day landings which gave equal coverage to all allied participants. Compare that to modern films like saving private ryan...
No need to state the obvious, hollywood sells to the US market first, but that doesn't negate the point that other allies are vastly under-represented.
MÅ¥HÅRM
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by American Robin 72not Mexico we did that before ww1,, was an big can of worms too. Not as bad as Iraq. more like finding Pancho binladen.
This post certainly is covering a lot of ground, though as far as the "war on terror" goes It took an attack on sept3mber 11th to wakw up bush to the problem. Up until then he never really seemed interested in the middle east as long as the oil kept flowing (with the ecception of his personal vendetta with Saddam.). The rest of the middle east pr ...[text shortened]... aq has nothing to do with terrorism of defending the U.S. but rather a personal agenda of bush.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicDoesn't quite fit your request for movie showing America winning WW2 single-handedly, but the heroes depicted in U-571 were actually english, not american, as shown in the hollywood version of the events.
US war movies make you laugh, eh?...what movie depicts America winning WW2 single-handedly..I'd like to see it...are you sure you're not talking about "Bullwinkle and Rocky"? 🙄 😲
D
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterInstead of having his script writers trawl through history for the correct quote, all he had to do was show this clip ( http://geekt.org/gopconstrm.mov ) to motivate the Canadians to get more active. It seems to have worked on millions of americuns. Although having said that, different audience might have different consequences.
Dubya gave a speech in Halifax, Nova Scotia today. During that speech, he attempted to push Canada into being a more active participant on his war on terror.
D
02 Dec 04
''Das Boot'' and ''Iron Cross'' are both good WWII films from a slightly different point of view, in two ways. Most obviously, the protagonists are German (a different point of view only because I'm American). The real point of these films is that the other 'different point of view'' is pretty superficial, because they are about wars and how bad they are, not wars and winning them.
Mel Gibson notwithstanding, ''Gallipoli'' is also an excellent war film expressing the latter sentiment.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by RagnorakI had heard that. I never saw the movie but I read that it gave credit to Americans for something they didn't do... or something like that. I think what I read was that the U.S. DID recover the code machine but they did it AFTER the British had already done it so it wasn't quite as big a deal... something like that.
Doesn't quite fit your request for movie showing America winning WW2 single-handedly, but the heroes depicted in U-571 were actually english, not american, as shown in the hollywood version of the events.
D
03 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterYou're welcome for my point of view....just wanted to counter your biased drivel...😀
Wow. I go away at 3 pm figuring the post wasn't generating much interest but I apparently didn't give enough time for that paragon of American jingoism, chancremechanic, to jump in.
I'd like to take this time to thank chancre for spouting every unproven negative American stereotypical perception of Canada he could think of in one post.
Chancre, I ...[text shortened]... r... but the quality wasn't very good and the actors sucked, so it was probably made in Canada.
04 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNot quite yet we haven't. And I'm referring to the governments of the world that still suppress human rights in a fascistic manner (while perhaps not fitting the exact profile of fascists, but the behaviour is so reprehensible that it makes little difference) such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe. If there was any oil there, or if it held more military significance and strategic position than say, a banana, then it would have been invaded too. And I'm not critisicing America for this, not solely anyway, because the U.N. should be more involved, along with, in particular, Britain, given that it is our former colony. Where were the 'great moral leaders of the world' during apartheid? Where are they in China? Isn't the Arab world's wealth built on oil exploitation by the wealthiest tribes (like the Saudi's) who show no respect to women, Kurds or Jews? Where are they when it comes to Israel?
Hay half empty booze jug... errr... decanter,
Ever bother to think that we learned not to let facist states come to fruition -- like we did in the mistake we made? You say it well. We were stupid. The part you miss is that we did learn. Not to appease facists.
In my opinion, yes, the world is better off without Saddam in charge of Iraq, but it was approached the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, and no-one gives a s##t about the countries or people that haven't got anything we want.
So, anyway, no, in no way whatsoever have you learned not to appease, you have just learned to take what you want by force, with some thinly veiled moral rationale. Something perhaps like lebensraum?
