only the dead see the end of war HBO

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

"and debunks the narrative that Iraq was ever as stable as some would have us believe"

That was my statement.. All the Documentary does is support what I have expressed that Iraq was never Stable and All the Obama haters on one hand love to claim Iraq was stable ... but because He pulled us out it it magical became unstable and created the ISIS problem... you cant have it both ways , the Documentary just shows what politicians wont say .. that stability was manufactured... The boots on the ground would not share the narrative that Iraq was stable

So we shouldn't have pulled out because it was still a smoldering fire or was the fire out .. The reality remains it the Iraqis country

below is from politifact on the topic

the sources of instability are fundamentally political."

Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.

" Then the pushed east from Syria into Anbar my statement "


Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it

"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave,"


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...0000-troops-i/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

That was my statement.. All the Documentary does is support what I have expressed that Iraq was never Stable and All the Obama haters on one hand love to claim Iraq was stable ... but because He pulled us out it it magical became unstable and created the ISIS problem... you cant have it both ways , the Documentary just shows what politicians wont say .. that stability was manufactured... The boots on the ground would not share the narrative that Iraq was stable

So we shouldn't have pulled out because it was still a smoldering fire or was the fire out .. The reality remains it the Iraqis country

below is from politifact on the topic

the sources of instability are fundamentally political."

Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.

" Then the pushed east from Syria into Anbar my statement "


Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it

"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave,"


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...0000-troops-i/

"I have expressed that Iraq was never Stable "

You're saying that because the stability was due to the presence of American troops, that's not real stability? Well, when Rudy Guliani became mayor of NYC, it was a sh*thole. So he put a cop on every corner with a stick and a gun, and guess what, crime came down. Crime didn't come down because the criminals stopped being jerks...it came down because the criminals were overwhelmed by the presence of force. Just because 'stability' is achieved by scaring the bad guys, that doesn't mean that the result isn't 'stability'. Violence was way down, elections were held. I agree with you, violence was down only because of the American presence. But violence was still down. Things were BETTER because we were there.

"that stability was manufactured"

Agreed. But violence was down as a result of the manufactured sense of security. If violence is down, and as a result, girls can go to school instead of being beaten with rocks, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better than the alternative, which we have now?

"The reality remains it the Iraqis country"

Never heard anyone say otherwise.

"Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it"

True. What is also true, and you carefully left out, is that Obama had the option of seeking a status of forces agreement to let us stay. Many people advised Obama to do that, because they feared that bad guys would resume being bad, as soon as we left. I don't think anyone denies that's exactly what happened.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True. What is also true, and you carefully left out, is that Obama had the option of seeking a status of forces agreement to let us stay. Many people advised Obama to do that, because they feared that bad guys would resume being bad, as soon as we left. I don't think anyone denies that's exactly what happened.

Jim, I've asked you many times if you would have allowed US troops to be subject to Iraqi law. Would you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, I've asked you many times if you would have allowed US troops to be subject to Iraqi law. Would you?

In all honesty, I don't ever remember you asking me that. It's an interesting question.

I expect them to be aware of local laws and customs, and to try not to offend anyone when possible. But subject to all local laws? I don't think so. It's an interesting question, though.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso
only the dead see the end of war HBO

A must watch

This Documentary Shows How Iraq really was and the development of current day Isis .. and debunks the narrative that Iraq was ever as stable as some would have us believe

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
There was no political statement made at any point .. by anyone ...

not sure why you would think there was one ?


Originally Posted by scottw View Post

"and debunks the narrative that Iraq was ever as stable as some would have us believe"

QUOTE=wdmso;1097912]

That was my statement.. All the Documentary does is support what I have expressed

[/QUOTE]




so just to sum things up on this movie....it's a "must watch" because it supports your political take on the Iraq war and it's aftermath....the movie maker didn't create it as a political statement......the reviews I've cited didn't review it as a political statement but rather as a crappy movie full of gratuitous violence and obnoxious narration

seems consistent throughout the reviews... another example- "Having been on the ground for years reporting for Time magazine, Ware has amassed a huge body of video, but it’s clear from “Only the Dead” that he and his co-director Bill Guttentag had no idea how to shape it into a cohesive documentary. They have opted, unfortunately, to thread it together with some hammy, overwrought narration by Ware himself. Ware seems to be honestly trying to express the horror and confusion of Iraq at the peak of the fighting, but relying on turgid, fundamentally meaningless pronouncements about “the recesses in our souls we never knew we had” has the effect of trivializing the people Ware has filmed.

Struggling for a narrative throughline, Ware focuses on the rise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the ruthless leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, while at the same time, using his own experience as a framing device. But the film offers too little in the way of context to work as a study of al-Zarqawi—the main takeaway seems to be that he was a really, really bad dude, which is not exactly revelatory—and Ware never gives enough of himself for the film to work as a personal story. In his narration, he comes off as grim and slightly pompous, constantly going on about the darkness he discovered in his own soul but never exposing that darkness in an honest, revealing way. The effect is worsened by a portentously pounding score."


(though if you read the TIME review, the author reads all sorts of support for his obvious political bias from it)

.....I'm not sure how many thumbs Siskel and Ebert would give it but it sounds like it would only and has only been enjoyed or celebrated by those looking to support a political view through a movie where "There was no political statement made at any point .. by anyone ..."....seems odd...no?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

Originally Posted by wdmso
only the dead see the end of war HBO

A must watch

This Documentary Shows How Iraq really was and the development of current day Isis .. and debunks the narrative that Iraq was ever as stable as some would have us believe

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
There was no political statement made at any point .. by anyone ...

not sure why you would think there was one ?


Originally Posted by scottw View Post

"and debunks the narrative that Iraq was ever as stable as some would have us believe"

QUOTE=wdmso;1097912]

That was my statement.. All the Documentary does is support what I have expressed

so just to sum things up on this movie....it's a "must watch" because it supports your political take on the Iraq war and it's aftermath....the movie maker didn't create it as a political statement......the reviews I've cited didn't review it as a political statement but rather as a crappy movie full of gratuitous violence and obnoxious narration

seems consistent throughout the reviews... another example- "Having been on the ground for years reporting for Time magazine, Ware has amassed a huge body of video, but it’s clear from “Only the Dead” that he and his co-director Bill Guttentag had no idea how to shape it into a cohesive documentary. They have opted, unfortunately, to thread it together with some hammy, overwrought narration by Ware himself. Ware seems to be honestly trying to express the horror and confusion of Iraq at the peak of the fighting, but relying on turgid, fundamentally meaningless pronouncements about “the recesses in our souls we never knew we had” has the effect of trivializing the people Ware has filmed.

Struggling for a narrative throughline, Ware focuses on the rise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the ruthless leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, while at the same time, using his own experience as a framing device. But the film offers too little in the way of context to work as a study of al-Zarqawi—the main takeaway seems to be that he was a really, really bad dude, which is not exactly revelatory—and Ware never gives enough of himself for the film to work as a personal story. In his narration, he comes off as grim and slightly pompous, constantly going on about the darkness he discovered in his own soul but never exposing that darkness in an honest, revealing way. The effect is worsened by a portentously pounding score."


(though if you read the TIME review, the author reads all sorts of support for his obvious political bias from it)

.....I'm not sure how many thumbs Siskel and Ebert would give it but it sounds like it would only and has only been enjoyed or celebrated by those looking to support a political view through a movie where "There was no political statement made at any point .. by anyone ..."....seems odd...no? [/QUOTE]

so just to sum things up on this movie....it's a "must watch" because it supports your political take on the Iraq war and it's aftermath.

No it supports what I experienced when I was there As an Infantry Platoon Sgt .. actually looking for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, IED makers the elections .. it has nothing to do with how I politically wish to view past events in iraq I dont blame Bush or Obama for the rise of ISIS because they were alway there in one form or another in the middle east

It seem your the one trying very very hard to be political

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It seem your the one trying very very hard to be political

like the movie...I've yet to make a political claim about it....beyond suggesting the reviews were evaluating it's cinematic quality rather than it's political message...or not

however....


Originally Posted by wdmso
only the dead see the end of war HBO

"All the Documentary does is support what I have expressed that Iraq was never Stable and All the Obama haters on one hand love to claim Iraq was stable ... but because He pulled us out it it magical became unstable and created the ISIS problem... you cant have it both ways , the Documentary just shows what politicians wont say .. that stability was manufactured... The boots on the ground would not share the narrative that Iraq was stable


the sources of instability are fundamentally political."

[scottw]

this was my favorite from TIME where the author states there's not much political in the film...then immediately launches into a political diatribe about the film...hilarious...."



"There’s not much in the way of politics in the film, but Ware’s anguished attempts to reckon with his Iraq experiences contrast starkly with America’s failure to do the same. To this day, the size and scale of the catastrophe of that war, which took the lives of some 4,500 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqis, still seems unappreciated here. And far too often, the direct line from Zarqawi and the Iraq war to Syria and ISIS’s caliphate is willfully ignored, as is the degree to which America’s failures in Iraq still undercut its reputation and strength abroad. What becomes clear as you watch the film, though, is how silly, craven, and narcissistic it is for would-be leaders to bray for new wars when they haven’t the slightest clue what war actually means for those who have to fight it, and those who have to endure it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

this was my favorite from TIME where the author states there's not much political in the film...then immediately launches into a political diatribe about the film...hilarious...."



"There’s not much in the way of politics in the film, but Ware’s anguished attempts to reckon with his Iraq experiences contrast starkly with America’s failure to do the same. To this day, the size and scale of the catastrophe of that war, which took the lives of some 4,500 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqis, still seems unappreciated here. And far too often, the direct line from Zarqawi and the Iraq war to Syria and ISIS’s caliphate is willfully ignored, as is the degree to which America’s failures in Iraq still undercut its reputation and strength abroad. What becomes clear as you watch the film, though, is how silly, craven, and narcissistic it is for would-be leaders to bray for new wars when they haven’t the slightest clue what war actually means for those who have to fight it, and those who have to endure it.

You have a lot to say about a film you haven't watched? But insist what was said in an interview.. is whats in the film.. now that being objective

Seeing you enjoy reviews

Reality from an unbiased lens
9/10
Author: jmswarner from Canton, OH
22 March 2016
Fantastic story telling by Michael Ware in this gripping doc that portrays the harsh realities of war in a sense that is rarely attempted, let alone achieved. Kudos to the job of capturing the raw emotion from the soldiers' before, during and after conflicts where they are fighting for their lives. They are moments that 95% of the civilian population have never witnessed. The film could of been a tad shorter, as I felt there were a few unnecessary scenes. But overall, the pace and narration were spot on for the most part. This documentary is definitely not meant for the faint of heart, but, if you are interested in REALITY then this film is meant for you.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1098072]You have a lot to say about a film you haven't watched? .. now that being objective ....



I cited Salon, Variety and Time reviews as reasons I wouldn't watch it..that seems to me to be extraordinarily objective...I don't honestly know what Rush Limbaugh thought of the film (Bryan could probably tell you) and I don't know who jmswarner from Canton, OH is, but I wouldn't watch based on that review either, sounds like he got off on the violence and reality a little

hey, isn't this the guy that came under a lot of criticism for narrating a movie that was sent to him where US Soldiers were stalked and shot by snipers and then ran it on CNN?