I HATE THIS CRAP!!!! - Page 3

drEaPer · 01-04-06, 11:16 AM

Its not about who did it, but what use you make out of it.

The circumstances of 9/11 were never fully revealed, many video tapes were never disclosed, many questions left unanswered and many ppl vanished who could have answered them.
Things are always different from what you think ow they are. I for sure dont know the answer, but I am dang sure that the official version is not how it happened. Too many questions, to many rethorical evasions. So many obvious things that scientists, pilots and structural engineers challenged, never got answered and simple things never got disclosed. Nobody really knows the truth. For me its a new Kennedy case

But I dont wanna make ppl jump on me, so just delete that comparison from your mind, still 30 to go

Konovalov · 01-04-06, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

But I dont wanna make ppl jump on me, so just delete that comparison from your mind, still 30 to go

Not me. Too much to do and not enough time right now. Funnily enough with all the talk of Nazi's on the forum of recent I am trying to finish off a book that had been sitting on my shelf since late 2003 titled 'The Coming of the Third Reich' by author Richard J. Evans. The reason for the rush is that his second book (in a 3 part series), has just been released 'The Third Reich in Power' and it should arrive in the mail via Amazon UK tomorrow. I would really like to get stuck into this as soon as I get it.

TLAM Strike · 01-04-06, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

But I dont wanna make ppl jump on me, so just delete that comparison from your mind, still 30 to go

I'll cut it down to 24:

Quote:

Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed.

The Executive Branch isn't responsible for the administration of Justice the Judiciary is. The Executive (in this Governor) can pardon someone in Jail but that is only to check the power of the Judiciary.

Quote:

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died.

Bush has little to do with this. In all recent American wars US forces have taken very few casulties compaired to the other side and non-combatants due to our superior equipment and tactics. So the Bush = Hitler because the US Military is good? HUH?

Quote:

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a â€œshock and aweâ€ blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.

As have most other military battle plans since the 1930's.

Quote:

Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a â€œcoalition of the willing,â€ in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussoliniâ€™s Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blairâ€™s diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future.

Doesnâ€™t defection mean joining the other side? The Philippines didn't join the side of the Insurgents!

Quote:

Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

A Majority elected him the 2nd time.

Quote:

Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.

He was raised in Texas of course he talks like a cowboy. Itâ€™s a regional accent. You can be smart (or in this case moderately intelligent and wealthy) and still talk like a redneck.

Abraham · 01-04-06, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

Calm down, I didnt insult you, its just a quote from a professor. Freedom of speech.

And sorry, its Off Topic, this just jumped at me when I read it way up in the thread.

No offense meant.

As far as "Freedom of speech" is concerned, this is only partially true.
Posters can be held responsable for the wording and content of links in their postings. In other words we can't hide behind the argument: "The professor said this or that and I only gave the link", or, in another example: "I didn't use offensive language, it was used in this link I posted".

It was explained in this link I posted:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=46794

In other words: no bending of forum rules by proxy!

Although professor Jayne's comparison between the dictator/massmurderer Hitler, who is responsable for the start of a world war and the democraticaly elected President Bush of a free nation - whatever people think about his policies - primary reflects upon the historic knowledge of this English professor himself, it could nevertheless be considered offensive for or flaming by some of our forum members.

Just a reminder...

Abraham

(with moderator cap on)

I-25 · 01-04-06, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

Keelhaul him!!

I-25, you think the Director's Cut is good? Try the extended version...5+ hours of u-boat goodness.

I WANT IT!!!! but where???

Gizzmoe · 01-04-06, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-25

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

Keelhaul him!!

I-25, you think the Director's Cut is good? Try the extended version...5+ hours of u-boat goodness.

I WANT IT!!!! but where???

Amazon.com.

Abraham · 01-04-06, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-25

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

Keelhaul him!!

I-25, you think the Director's Cut is good? Try the extended version...5+ hours of u-boat goodness.

I WANT IT!!!! but where???

Amazon.com.

But be aware of the regio limitations (if applicable to your DVD-player)!

01-04-06, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

Calm down, I didnt insult you, its just a quote from a professor. Freedom of speech.

And sorry, its Off Topic, this just jumped at me when I read it way up in the thread.

No offense meant.

I take no offense at all, even though I'm was and am still a Bush supporter. You see, every single one of those comparisons could also be made to fit another American president-Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was elected by a minority, he suspended civil liberties in order to conduct his war, when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court challenged him on this, Lincoln threatened to throw him in prison.

Do I compare Bush to Lincoln? No, not even close; but words, deeds and events can be portrayed any way we want to see them, and comparing Bush to Hitler only works if you already hate Bush, for whatever reason.

sonar732 · 01-04-06, 02:52 PM

As in any subject matter on the internet...post one subject for your side, and I'll post three other sources that discredit it.

Ducimus · 01-04-06, 05:03 PM

U571 is off the mark before it was even released. From its title to its ending its full of historical inaccuracies. How its director has the gall to insinuate his movie is accurate in any respect is beyond comprehension.

Takeda Shingen · 01-04-06, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

OT: The comparison between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler is less than apt. The US is not systematically eliminating ethnic groups through a state-governed system of organized and methodical work, internment and death camps.

Well, they are not eliminating ethnic groups, but they are treating civil rights just like ol germany did, and they bend their laws with exactly the same justifactions the nazi regime did.
They make new laws, cut civil rights and freedom for the sake of security and by fueling the fear for terrorism which in turn, got big in the first place due to american politics throughout the years before.
So from some point, you can compare em. Here in germany alot do but noone admits it (cause officially, we are usa supporters, though I d say thats just officially, we really loved clinton though)
On politician opposed bush, and guess what, was forced to retire.
Fortunately the american senate is there to hold him and his administration at bay, something that the nazis managed to overthrow (was called "Gleichschaltung").

Sometimes a pic sais more thatn thousand words:

This post is not intended to be hostile! Just a view of things!

Quote:

31 Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush
by Edward Jayne
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 29, 2004
(revised from an earlier version posted March 29, 2003)

When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, his spokesmen began comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler, the most monstrous figure in modern history. Everybody was therefore shocked when a high German bureaucrat turned the tables by comparing Bush himself with Hitler. As to be expected, she (the bureaucrat) was forced to resign because of her extreme disrespect for an American president. However, the resemblance sticks--there are too many similarities to be ignored, some of which may be listed here.

Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitlerâ€™s case the Reichstag fire, in Bushâ€™s case the 9-11 catastrophe.

Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.

Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germanyâ€™s military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other.

Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.

Like Hitler, Bush displays great populist enthusiasm in his patriotic speeches, but primarily serves wealthy investors who subsidize his election campaigns and share with him their comfortable lifestyle. As he himself jokes, he treats these individuals at the pinnacle of our economy as his true political â€œbase.â€

Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nationâ€™s unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his â€œprovidentialâ€ role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world.

Like Hitler, Bush promotes a future world order that guarantees his own nationâ€™s hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).

Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he offers generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the cases of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City. The same goes for U.S. domestic programs. Once Bush was elected, many leaders of these programs learned to dread his making any kind of an appearance to praise their success, since this was almost inevitably followed by severe cuts in their budgets.

Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argued, for example, that they had taken every measure possible to avoid war, than an invasion of Iraq would diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat against the U.S., that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda, and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. invasion plans. All of this was false. They also insisted that Iraq hid numerous weapons it did not possess since the mid-190s, and they refused to acknowledge the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the early nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accused others of deception and evasiveness.

Like Hitler, Bush incessantly shifted his arguments to justify invading Iraq--from Iraqâ€™s WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of Iraqi democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for the war was challenged, Bush advanced to another, but only to shift back again at another time.

Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts emphasize the ruthlessness of their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the bush team justified the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Husseinâ€™s crimes against humanity over the past twenty-five years. However, these crimes were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S. Our government supplied Hussein with illegal weapons (poison gas included), and there were sixty U.S. advisors in Iraq when these weapons were put to use (see NY Times, Aug. 18, 1992). U.S. aid to Iraq was actually doubled afterwards despite disclaimers from Washington that our nation opposed their use. President Reaganâ€™s special envoy Donald Rumsfeld personally informed Hussein of this one hundred percent increment during one of his two trips to Iraq at the time. He also told Hussein not to take U.S. disclaimers seriously.

Like Hitler, Bush takes pride in his status as a â€œWar President,â€ and his global ambition makes him perhaps the most dangerous president in our nationâ€™s history, a â€œrogueâ€ chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars. He fully acknowledges his willingness to engage in wars of â€œchoiceâ€ as well as wars of necessity. Sooner or later this choice will oblige universal conscription as well as a full-scale war economy.

Like Hitler, Bush continues to pursue war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. Additional to unprecedented low interest rates bestowed by the Federal Reserve, he has actually cut federal taxes twice by substantial amounts, especially for the top one percent of U.S. taxpayers, while conducting an expensive invasion and an even more expensive occupation of a hostile nation. As a result, President Clintonâ€™s $350 billion budget surplus has been reduced to a $450 billion deficit, comprising an unprecedented $800 billion decline in less than four years. At the same time the U.S. dollar has steadily dropped against currencies of both Europe and Japan.

Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. With the extra financing obliged by the defeat and occupation of Iraq, Bush now relies on a â€œdefenseâ€ budget well in excess of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. Moreover, the $416 billion defense package passed last week by Congress will probably need to be supplemented before the end of the year.

Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a â€œcoalition of the willing,â€ in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussoliniâ€™s Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blairâ€™s diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future.

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to go to war over the objections of the U.N. (League of Nations). His Iraq invasion was illegal and therefore a war crime as explained by Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, which require two votes, not one, by the Security Council before any state takes such an action. First a vote is needed to explore all possibilities short of warfare (in Iraqâ€™s case through the use of U.N. inspectors), and once this has been shown to be fruitless, a second vote is needed to permit military action. U.S. and U.K. delegates at the Security Council prevented this second vote once it was plain they lacked a majority. This was because other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the findings of U.N. inspectors that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. Minus this second vote, the invasion was illegal. Bush also showed in the process that he has no qualms about bribing, bullying, and insulting U.N. members, even tapping their telephone lines. This was done with undecided members of the Security Council as well as the U.N. Secretary General when the U.S.-U.K. resolution was debated preceding the invasion.

Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939 (for example in his Sept. 19 speech), Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as having been a â€œpotentialâ€ threat to our national security--indeed as one of the instigators of the 9-11 attack despite a complete lack of evidence to support this claim.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a â€œshock and aweâ€ blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.

Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died.

Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed.

Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea and Iran as potential third and fourth fronts. Much the same thing happened to Hitler when he advanced German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941. Today, bush seems prevented by the excessive costs of the Iraqi debacle from going to war elsewhere if reelected, but not through any lack of desire.

Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing â€œregime changeâ€ by installing Quisling-style client governments backed by a U.S. military occupation with both political and economic control entirely in the hands of Americans. It is no surprise that Iyad Alawi, Iraqâ€™s current temporary prime minister, was once affiliated with the CIA and has been reliably reported by the Australian press to have executed six hooded prisoners with a handgun to their heads just a day or two before his appointment a couple weeks ago.

Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties in captive nations and depends on detention centers (i.e., concentration camps) such as a Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and any number of secret interrogation centers across the world. Prisoners at the camps go unidentified and have no legal rights as ordinarily guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. They have also been detained indefinitely (for 2 Â½ years already at Guantanamo Bay), though there is mounting evidence that many are innocent of what they have been charged--some, for example, having been randomly seized by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan for an automatic bounty from U.S. commanders. Moreover, many Iraqi prisoners have been tortured, in many instances just short of death. Recent U.S. documents disclose that as many twenty have died while being tortured, and twenty others have died under unusual circumstances yet to be determined.

Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents.

Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitlerâ€™s case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bushâ€™s case reporters have been almost totally â€œimbeddedâ€ by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack.

Like Hitler, Bush increasingly reduces the circle of aides he feels he can trust as his policies keep boomeranging at his own expense. Just as Hitler ended up isolated in his headquarters, with few individuals granted access, Bush is now said to be limiting access primarily to Attorney General Ashcroft (who also talks with God on a regular basis) as well as Karl Rove, the Vice President, Karen Hughes, and a few others. Both Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are now said to be out of the loop.

Like Hitler, Bush has become obsessed with his vision of conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (anti-Americanism. Many in contact with the White House are said to be worried that he is beginning to lose touch with reality--perhaps resulting from the use of medication that seriously distorts his judgment. Possibly symptomatic of this concern is the increasing number of disaffected government officials who leak embarrassing documents.

Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.

Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues Darwinism, in Hitlerâ€™s case by treating the Aryan race as being superior on an evolutionary basis, in Bushâ€™s case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.

Of course countless differences may be listed between Hitler and President Bush, most of which are to the credit of Bush. Nevertheless, the resemblances listed here are striking, especially since Bushâ€™s first term in office must be compared with Hitlerâ€™s performance as German Chancellor through the year 1937, preceding the chain of events immediately preceding World War II. In any case, George W. Bush seems the worst and most dangerous U.S. president in recent memory (for me since Roosevelt)--if not in the entire history of the United States.

Edward Jayne is a retired English professor with experience as a '60s activist. He can be contacted at: edward.jayne@wmich.edu.

Thought its interesting, no offense meant. I am not anti american.

Ridiculous. Political enemies of any public figure go to absurd lengths to make points. There are plenty of incompetent leaders peppered throughout history that have the same traits without the genocidal tendencies. The Hitler comparison is made simply for calculated effect. It works, as people like to bite on it, hook line and sinker.

The benefit of being an activist is that you get to take the gloves off and rail against a currently serving political figure. The problem is that by doing so, you simply become the agent for a rival political figure. What results is little more than an excercise in semantics, which is precisely what you quote as evidence.

PS Not a Bush supporter. Don't like Howard Dean either.

drEaPer · 01-04-06, 08:24 PM

I dont support nor oppose this, I just added it for the record cause I think (even though a lot things are seen from a wrong perspective) that some things (in particular lying to the public / reasons for Iraq war / ignoring the worlds political rules / UN) can well be compared. Its for a reason that Bush is really not popular in the world. The way he got elected also went along with many "strange" happenings.
Nevertheless alot of those comparisments are generalized and I apologize, I shouldnt have quoted the nonsense.
So will just shup up, dont wanna start a flame war, cause I have yet to see a board where its possible to discuss american politics without starting a flamewar.

Dont wanna challenge it

I withdraw

Lets talk on about the movie

cheers!

Mustang · 01-05-06, 01:21 AM

No mean to bump,
but I feel this deserves some of my critique.
Typical American nonsense? Ah, as in Americans were glorified through the film for taking credit for something they didn't do? I don't believe that is typical of just American media.

I feel U-571 was a poor film, because it was fiction based on true events(England caught the Enigma) but movie makers don't care about authenticity they care about box office sales and most movies in that genre do a poor job. But it had some very nice images of WWII vessels. And good sounds.

And if you paid attention about the scene where the U-boat crew are MGing the lifeboat you will see that none of them looked like they wanted to do it(Didn't look like bad guys to me). The movie may not have been historically authentic or written well... But it showed the hard decisions that many COs and crews of that time had to make.

And before you take potshots at another country, make sure your own never does another James Bond film since all of them have some fabricated plot based on historical events and also be sure to watch 'Western Approaches.'

I do agree with some of your commentary about the film but the overall commentary about Americans was quite rude and uncalled for.
==
Btw, Crimson Tide seemed rather morally complicated as did The Usual Suspects.
==

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB..

yes the U571 story is insane---typical american media nonsense--i do watch it every now and then tho--the sub interiors are great to watch--the best part of the movie is the very start showing the action on the sub whilst it's still german crewed (other than the completely unnecessary lifeboat murder scene--americans like to know whose the good guys and whose the bads guys lol--) --after that it's too much for the brain to take--

they'res the old saying

"no sex please we're British"
judge-ing from the average American movie you'd be forced to add the saying
"no complex moral situations please -we're American"

apologies to those Americans amoungst us who feel the same way

CB.. · 01-05-06, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang

No mean to bump,
but I feel this deserves some of my critique.
Typical American nonsense? Ah, as in Americans were glorified through the film for taking credit for something they didn't do? I don't believe that is typical of just American media.

I feel U-571 was a poor film, because it was fiction based on true events(England caught the Enigma) but movie makers don't care about authenticity they care about box office sales and most movies in that genre do a poor job. But it had some very nice images of WWII vessels. And good sounds.

And if you paid attention about the scene where the U-boat crew are MGing the lifeboat you will see that none of them looked like they wanted to do it(Didn't look like bad guys to me). The movie may not have been historically authentic or written well... But it showed the hard decisions that many COs and crews of that time had to make.

And before you take potshots at another country, make sure your own never does another James Bond film since all of them have some fabricated plot based on historical events and also be sure to watch 'Western Approaches.'

I do agree with some of your commentary about the film but the overall commentary about Americans was quite rude and uncalled for.
==
Btw, Crimson Tide seemed rather morally complicated as did The Usual Suspects.
==

i think the thing is that the UK stopped producing propoganda regarding WW2 a long time ago--and U571 comes across very much like propoganda--as the USA runs it's economy on a constant war footing--it's not unreasonable to presume it runs it's mass media along similar lines-- it could at least add in some humour (ala James Bond)
propoganda as we know is not the place for complex morality-

they could have displayed the german crew in the film handing out fresh water emergency rations and even warm dry clothing to the survivors in the life boat--and that would have put an entirely different complexion on the following events in the film--

it is the tendency for this "setting up" emotionaly/morally of the characters in a vast trough of films as "the bad guys" immediately prior to introducing the "good guys" who are going to see to it that the situation is "sorted"
that renders the emotional and moral content of the film (and others) as simplistic and not disimilar to primitive proganda--

i'm sure it's not rude to mention this as it is perfectly normal to see this sort of thing in films etc---the point is how often is it seen--it's the tendency for the American media to repeat this trick endlessly that makes it interesting and unusual--

mind you these days very little of any great merit is produced by any-one american or other wise!!

it's been a long time since we saw the likes of "tora tora tora"

Marhkimov · 01-05-06, 11:39 AM

Movies and stories are required to have good guys and bad guys, antagonists and protagonists... It is needed for the purpose of moving along the plot in an exciting fashion, and in U-571, it just so happens that the Germans are portrayed as the antagonists.

Otherwise without this "good-guy-bad-guy" concept, you would have a historical documentary, such as Tora Tora Tora. There, you will see nothing but a rendition of history, or as close as can be.

And it would be wise to note that historical movies don't generate very much revenue, especially when compared to a-historical movies, which have some fact, but mostly fiction.

01-05-06, 11:39 AM	#15
Marhkimov Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bay Area, California, USA Posts: 2,377 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Movies and stories are required to have good guys and bad guys, antagonists and protagonists... It is needed for the purpose of moving along the plot in an exciting fashion, and in U-571, it just so happens that the Germans are portrayed as the antagonists. Otherwise without this "good-guy-bad-guy" concept, you would have a historical documentary, such as Tora Tora Tora. There, you will see nothing but a rendition of history, or as close as can be. And it would be wise to note that historical movies don't generate very much revenue, especially when compared to a-historical movies, which have some fact, but mostly fiction. __________________ It takes two to tango

01-04-06, 11:16 AM	#1
drEaPer Navy Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 176 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Its not about who did it, but what use you make out of it. The circumstances of 9/11 were never fully revealed, many video tapes were never disclosed, many questions left unanswered and many ppl vanished who could have answered them. Things are always different from what you think ow they are. I for sure dont know the answer, but I am dang sure that the official version is not how it happened. Too many questions, to many rethorical evasions. So many obvious things that scientists, pilots and structural engineers challenged, never got answered and simple things never got disclosed. Nobody really knows the truth. For me its a new Kennedy case But I dont wanna make ppl jump on me, so just delete that comparison from your mind, still 30 to go

01-04-06, 02:52 PM	#9
sonar732 The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Central MO Posts: 1,562 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	As in *any* subject matter on the internet...post one subject for your side, and I'll post three other sources that discredit it.

01-04-06, 05:03 PM	#10
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	U571 is off the mark before it was even released. From its title to its ending its full of historical inaccuracies. How its director has the gall to insinuate his movie is accurate in any respect is beyond comprehension.

01-04-06, 08:24 PM	#12
drEaPer Navy Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 176 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I dont support nor oppose this, I just added it for the record cause I think (even though a lot things are seen from a wrong perspective) that some things (in particular lying to the public / reasons for Iraq war / ignoring the worlds political rules / UN) can well be compared. Its for a reason that Bush is really not popular in the world. The way he got elected also went along with many "strange" happenings. Nevertheless alot of those comparisments are generalized and I apologize, I shouldnt have quoted the nonsense. So will just shup up, dont wanna start a flame war, cause I have yet to see a board where its possible to discuss american politics without starting a flamewar. Dont wanna challenge it I withdraw Lets talk on about the movie cheers!