Oh, Hollywood...
Did anyone happen to catch this week's episode of Boston Legal? It was extremely well-played out on both sides and brought up not only issues involving support for and against the war, but the fact that it is fundamentally "a mess" and not being solved as it should be, regardless of whether or not we should be there.
The concept of suing the US Army, let alone in a time of war, seems blasphemous even to me (a democrat, in case you haven't noticed). There are bound to be deaths in war; in fact, it seems to be a proviso in defining "war." If you don't want to die, get a part time job to pay for college instead of signing up for the military.
However, James Spader's character (the prosecuting attorney) makes a few good points. Such as: if we want to honor our troops, how about giving a damn when they're killed due to lack of appropriate preparation and equipment. Or the questions he posed: "Are we trying to win this war?" and "Why don't we send more troops over to get the job done?" Interesting.
I also think the comparison between this war and Vietnam, but "without the outrage" of the American people is great commentary. He also mentions a noticeable lack of media coverage -- note the part on CNN spending hours covering a missing girl in Aruba, but moments on war updates.
Lastly, William Shatner (who is avidly opposed to the suit against the Army, to the point of being personally offended, and provides some great points/counterpoints in the ongoing debate) mentions that he believes in a war that will prevent the situation in Iraq from ever happening here. James points out that as long as dissenting opinions are encouraged, what is happening in Iraq will never happen here.
Please note *any republicans that are reading* that the commies in Hollywood did NOT side with the prosecution, but rather with the US Army. Despite the democratic sway of Hollywood, they put on a good showing on both sides and ended up dismissing a suit that tried to put a monetary value on the dispute over the war. I don't think anyone should have gotten money out of the deal, and therefore a civil suit was somewhat uncalled for, but if only to hear a judge make commentary and hear the debate presented with so many points from different angles...
I liked the damn show.
The concept of suing the US Army, let alone in a time of war, seems blasphemous even to me (a democrat, in case you haven't noticed). There are bound to be deaths in war; in fact, it seems to be a proviso in defining "war." If you don't want to die, get a part time job to pay for college instead of signing up for the military.
However, James Spader's character (the prosecuting attorney) makes a few good points. Such as: if we want to honor our troops, how about giving a damn when they're killed due to lack of appropriate preparation and equipment. Or the questions he posed: "Are we trying to win this war?" and "Why don't we send more troops over to get the job done?" Interesting.
I also think the comparison between this war and Vietnam, but "without the outrage" of the American people is great commentary. He also mentions a noticeable lack of media coverage -- note the part on CNN spending hours covering a missing girl in Aruba, but moments on war updates.
Lastly, William Shatner (who is avidly opposed to the suit against the Army, to the point of being personally offended, and provides some great points/counterpoints in the ongoing debate) mentions that he believes in a war that will prevent the situation in Iraq from ever happening here. James points out that as long as dissenting opinions are encouraged, what is happening in Iraq will never happen here.
Please note *any republicans that are reading* that the commies in Hollywood did NOT side with the prosecution, but rather with the US Army. Despite the democratic sway of Hollywood, they put on a good showing on both sides and ended up dismissing a suit that tried to put a monetary value on the dispute over the war. I don't think anyone should have gotten money out of the deal, and therefore a civil suit was somewhat uncalled for, but if only to hear a judge make commentary and hear the debate presented with so many points from different angles...
I liked the damn show.
posted by Jess at 10:15 PM
6 Comments:
Alright, I finally caught all of the show. Had to download it....uh...legally. I will admit that it was a fine episode and a fine show, almost to a point that I might start watching it regulary my time permiting. Let me lay it down.
It was interesting to hear that angle on the situation. But Hollywood did not fail me. While they did dismiss the case, the war was shed in a completely negetive light. Making the Army look bumbling. Saying that noone gives a damn. Our boys do need armour, let the Dems vote for the funds and then actually stand behind it instead of flip flopping. (I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it - John K. Election 2004)
And this is not another Vietnam. Anybody who says so would be wrong. If we follow the direction of the left, and pull out the same thing will happen and it will be. IF we left without finishing our the job, the country will be overran and back to what it was. Our soldiers would have given their lives for nothing. That is how Vietman ended. We left it unfinished. There is some qualification to that, those who fight and die in any war are braver then I will ever be. They have made the ultimate sacrifice upon the alter of freedom. That we should salute everyday.
As long as we have dessenting arguements it will never happen over here. I agree. Don't we want to give all people that opportunity?
Another point that was not talked about here is that we don't have an exit strategy. We do. When Irag can stand on it's own. We leave. When terrorism is almost gone, and these extremist bastards get that there's a new sheriff in town. We leave. We Iraq's people are totally out from under the oppressive ways and fear of their former government. We leave.
We are trying to win this war. Send more troops over. Get Dems to vote for that and I will give you a hug.
My most pertinent rebuttal is on the "exit strategy." You're saying that when an unstable nation (that was originally unstable) can stand on it's own and terrorism is eradicated from the country where it was founded, and when oppression no longer exists in an area of the world in which it is deeply rooted in the culture... we can leave.
You've just signed us on till 2999 AD.
I would never disrespect the vets of 'Nam by comparing this half ass attempt at controlling the middle east in honor of our gas prices to the war in the far east. However, there are striking similarities in that we are not wanted, the country we "beheaded" will take YEARS to repair and we're trying to fix it in the short term, and not all of our country is in support of us being there in the first place.
You talk about blaming the democrats for the yo-yo, but with Dub and his house of Republicans ruling whatever they like as a majority, you'd think that it wouldn't be too hard to requisition equipment to finish the war they declared (or rather never declared). And what is that 80 Billion dollars that Bush asked for and received for the war effort being spent on??
Here's a thought: put a woman in charge and she'll find a way to make an $80 BILLION BUDGET fit over the equipment and personnel needs of our military in Iraq. Don't believe me? Ask a mother of a baby how much it takes to balance food and diaper costs... Financing a war? No problem. (please do NOT take this analogy literally...)
And the judge didn't say that no one gives a damn. All he said was that the way things are going right now... it's a mess. The prosecution said that we should give a damn at loss of life and stop fiddle farting around over there. Not that no one cares, but that we need to stop hurting for our losses and FIX the damn thing. I don't know if that necessarily means sending more troops over, because I'm not convinced that our strategy isn't faulty, considering the "huge US" and its Army can't win a war against a "small Middle Eastern country" with more than a three year effort (and counting).
And finally, of course I believe that all people should be given the opportunity of expression. Why else would I leave my banter on a website for you to post commentary on?
ONe point that sticks out.
We did not go over there for oil. The war is not about oil. Nothing has anything to do with oil. YOu want to offer a different perspective, spot talking about oil. If it was about oil, we wouldn't see gas prices as high as they are.
It is just not about oil because we sure as hell aren't seeing any of it over here regardless of what gas prices are.
it's not about oil.
sorry, I hate when anybody says that.
Actually, gas prices relfect why we are so eager to win a war there: because without the supply from these countries, our gas prices soar. So you proved my point.
However, I do not think the whole war is about oil and an avenge of daddy's war in the middle east (which is the other thing "most" democrats will say). But I certainly don't think it's based on securing the freedom and human rights of the Iraqi people
You're still wrong...but at least you admit it's not about oil :)
I am never wrong.
:)
Post a Comment
<< Home