Slashdot Mirror
Review: Black Hawk Down
The movie, directed by Ridley Scott, stars Josh Hartnett, Sam Shepard and Tom Sizemore as various Army Rangers and Delta Force soldiers who found themselves under seige by thousands of enraged Somalians in a l993 battle that was the longest sustained firefight involving American troops since the Vietnam War. The soldiers were sent into Mogadishu, the Somalian capital, to capture a warlord and some of his aides.
The mission goes bad when one Black Hawk helicopter, then a second, are shot down by rocket-grenade firing members of a Somalia militia. The Army Ranger motto is "Leave No Man Behind," and they aren't kidding. Even though they captured the people they were looking for, the Rangers and Delta Force soldiers wouldn't leave the area until the bodies were recovered from the Black Hawks, even after it was clear the pilots were dead. The crash scenes brought tens of thousands of heavily-armed militia running, and the U.S. soldiers spend a horrific night under seige. Even though the warlord's aides were captured, what most Americans saw the next day on TV were horrifying images of U.S. soldiers' bodies being dragged naked through Somalian streets by joyous throngs.
The U.S. was initially involved in Somalia to stop the country's warlords from looting humanitarian aid meant for victims of one of the century's worst famines. But the American role there drifted into something else without much public consciousness or, apparently, strategic thinking. Somalia, along with the Bosnian conflicts, taught the American military once again that soldiers shouldn't be sent anywhere unless goals are clearly defined and there is a willingness to pursue the conflict to some conclusion even if there are casualties. Many military analysts say this shadow persisted over the U.S. Armed Forces until September 11.
The American Somalia mission -- clear at first -- degenerated into policing and warlord-busting, and nobody in or outside of the film can really explain why 19 U.S. soldiers gave up their lives. The U.S. mission there was abruptly ended by President Clinton two weeks after the bloody confrontation involving some of America's most elite troopers. More than 1,000 Somalians were killed in the brutal firefight.
Like the best-selling non-fiction book by Mark Bowden on which the movie was based, the film simply tells this astonishing, sad and grisly story. It's almost completely unadorned by speechifying, peripheral love interests and character development, or other Hollywood BS.
As was the case in HBO's Band of Brothers, there is no single star around which the movie flows, apart perhaps from Hartnett, who plays a Ranger sergeant promoted hours before the battle. The shooting is so fast and furious that most of the U.S. soldiers do blend together. There's so much blood, dust and darkness it's almost impossible to tell many apart for much of the movie. Some find that a weakness, but it seemed a strength to me. There is some truly mind-boggling -- and according to Bowden's book -- real heroism in this story, and it is genuinely moving. The Delta Force members in particular come across almost as almost mythic cartoon superheroes, but according to Bowden and the soldiers present their heroism and, in some cases, suicidal sacrifice, really did happen.
It's impossible to view this movie without thinking of Afghanistan, if for no other reason than the two conflicts seem so jarringly different. Somalia threw U.S. soldiers into a civil quagmire without any sense of what victory even meant. In some ways, our involvement in Afghanistan has a clear moral justification and purpose, but is a Drone War, conducted mostly by airplanes with the help of some small numbers of ground forces. In a way, Afghanistan suggests that the kind of heroism, sacrifice and bloody combat depicted in Black Hawk Down is a thing of the past. Today, a few members of Delta force would probably be squirreled away in some of Mogadishu's apartment buildings, directing laser-guided bombs.
This movie is visually rich, capturing the surreal atmosphere of Somalia in 1993, and the almost numbing carnage, bombing and confusion. The action sequences are very well done and harrowing. Some of the critics are complaining that the audience will feel as if it were under seige. I sure did. But to me, that was the beauty of the film.
"Black Hawk Down" - Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
By Larry Chin
January 3, 2002 -- True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned role as US war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released "Black Hawk Down," a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 US raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to "set the record straight." The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself.
Somalia: the facts
According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.
Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.
The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.
UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.
Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.
The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.
Bowden writes: " Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."
Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard:
"Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.
The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."
After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.
The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.
The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.
Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.
What a perfect moment to "clean up" the past.
Hollywood to the rescue
In promoting the film, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (who rewrote another humiliating episode of US military history with "Pearl Harbor") is seeking to convince Americans that the Somalia operation was "not America's darkest hour, but America's brightest hour;" that a bungled imperialist intervention was a noble incident of grand moral magnificence.
CNN film reviewer Paul Tatara describes "Black Hawk Down" as "pound for pound, one of the most violent films ever released by a major studio," from "two of the most pandering, tactless filmmakers in Hollywood history (Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott)" who are attempting to "teach us about honor among soldiers."
More important are the film's true subtexts, and the likely emotional reaction of viewers.
What viewers see is "brave and innocent young American boys" getting shot at and killed for "no reason" by "crazy black Islamists" that the Americans are "just trying to help." (Subtext one: America is good, and it is impossible to understand why "they hate us." Subtext two: "Those damned ungrateful foreigners." Subtext three: "Those damned blacks." Subtext four: "Kill Arabs.")
What viewers will remember is a line spoken by one of the "brave soldiers" about how, in the heat of combat, "politics goes out the window." (Subtext one: there is no need for thought; shoot first, talk later. Subtext two: it is right to abandon one's sanity, morality and ethics when faced with chaos. Subtext three: when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, America was right in embracing radical militarism and extreme violence, throwing all else "out the window.")
In the currently lethal political climate, in which testosterone rage, mob mentality, and love of war pass for normal behavior (while reason, critical thinking, and tolerance are considered treasonous), "Black Hawk Down" will appeal to the most violent elements of American society. Many who have seen the film report leaving the theater feeling angry, itching to "kick some ass." In short, the film is dangerous. And those who "love" it are dangerous.
Considering the fact that Somalia is one of the targets in the next phase of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," the timing of the film is no coincidence.
As Herbert London of the Hudson Institute said of "Black Hawk Down," "I would never deny the importance of heroism in battle, but just as we should recognize and honor heroes, we should also respect the truthfulness of the events surrounding their heroic acts. In the case of 'Black Hawk Down,' we get a lot of the former and almost nothing of the latter."
Close, but not close enough : (
Your ad here.
Bullshit. One word: OIL. Mobil, Chevron, and the other big oil companies had a deal with Somalia's ruling fascist. When he was overthrown, they lost out, and we went in. Follow the money.
You mean that an international effort to bring drought relief and order to a country in the midst of self destruction is "no good reason"?
The special forces in Mogadishu were sent on that particular mission to arrest the henchmen of a notorious criminal who was stealing food from his own people to buy guns to steal more food from his own people. When it comes to war, it doesn't get much clearer than that.
My person favorite quote from Mr. Katz here is:
ignorant citizenry
I suppose that he means the entire world, given the number of nations involved in that particular relief effort.
Next time there is a crisis in another country where starving people need help, we can ask Jon Jatz for his opinion and we can let them all starve to death instead.
Muerte
I personally think this movie is excellent - do not miss it. However make sure you read Mark Bowen's book for more history than the movie has time to convey. But I have one nitpick
THEY NEVER MENTION THE COMBAT JACK
In the book all of the rangers are obsessed with having the wierdess jack. So during the middle of one firefight when some of the troopers are nuts from the shell shock one of them whips out his trouser snake and starts going for it. Hence the combat jack. Now you know why army guys are a bit nuts
non-ficton story? Anyways, I take some offense at the "ignorant citizenry" bit. Am I to educate myself on every fucking thing the gov't does? This is a hallmark of American society. We, at least what appears to me to be a large majority, trust our gov't to do the right things. Everyone knows there are dishonest assholes out there that are going to do bad/illegal things but over we trust them to get it right. Like anything else, this goes in cycles - one might consider the cycle from Vietnam to 9/11 to such a cycle. In any event, I just hope the whole movie isn't that same washed-out hue that Saving Private Ryan was...
I found the movie quite depressing.
A simple operation turned chaotic and many people died fighting someone else's war. It was very violent and, unless you like that kind of movie, or like to be depressed, I wouldn't reccomend it.
As a history piece, from what I have read, the movie is right on. As a movie, it was pretty good really, it sure sucked me in. I enjoyed it. If you are looking to grow close to people in the story, it will not happen, as the development is really missing.
But this is not meant to be a great story, it is meant to be a telling of what really happened. And since I was not there, I can't be sure it was true. But if it was...
Here is a link to the original Philly Inquirer series. 29 chapters of what might be the real story. Read this and see the movie, then compare.
" Black Hawk Down original newspaper series"
It's nice that the hero of the story, John Stebbins aka John Grimes, is currently serving time in Levenworth for raping a 12 year old. Yeah, a real hero there.
Talk about propoganda in action. It works after all.
For a (more) balanced perspective, don't see the movie; read the book (or, heck, just about anything other than uninformed reviews like this).
The U.S. needs to get out of the "empire business". You can't win at that game. Eventually you wind up in the history books, right along with all the others who played and lost.
--- WWSD? What Would Strider Do?
camaraderie
Too many characters in this movie were anonymous and interchangeable. With the exception of Josh Hartnet, (who was always centre screen and on his own in his shots) the other soldiers were practically indistinguishable from each other. You had the group of 3/4 soldiers pinned down, being chased by 100's of gun-toting Somalis, quick cut to the group of 4/5 Americans pinned down by a group of 100-odd gun-toting Somalis, and so on. As there was no real character introduction or development before the battle scene, the only way of really telling each man apart was by how he looked, but once the helmet went on, you could only tell them apart by the various amounts of powder burns/blood on their face. Not really getting to know the characters means that you have little to nothing emotionally vested in their fate above and beyond the usual "gung-ho USA, there go our boys" sort of thing, which means that by the time you figure out exactly who that was that was shot, it really is no more or less significant than any other random civilian being shot on the street. If you read the book on which the film is based, it manages to define each character, and thus gives much more emotional weight to them during the battle. Granted, you do not have the same time available in a movie, but it seemed that this movie was pitched like "think Saving Private Ryan, without the quiet, boring parts (i.e, story)" I know Ridley Scott keeps saying that he wanted to drop the audience "right into the action, as the men saw it", but for me, if I go to see a movie, I want to see a story AIDED by a battle scene, not a scrap of a story used as an excuse for a long and bloody battle scene.
As seen on Plastic : An alternative view of Black Hawk Down.
Is that this movie will unfortunately knock off LOTR from the #1 spot...
Simple as that. Citing him as a source for criticism of the US government and military is like asking the KKK for thier opinion on affirmative action. Chomsky has a visceral hatred of the US Military and the US goverment, and its very evidne tin his writing and speech.
Be aware of obvious biases n the part of the the peopel cited in this post - I'd trust them no more than I would a Pat Buchanan screed on immigration.
Some day I hope that we have a polition that has the balls to say: 'We [invaded/bombed/whatever] this area to protect the interests of Oil for our country. Our lifestyles depend on this Oil, and until it changes thats why we do it.'.
I feel like thats basically the truth. Maybe when we as citizens and consumers are ready to change our habbits, maybe things in the world will change.
Unfortunately such honesty is impossible in our political climate. Unforunately it's going to take an epidemic to change our unsatiable consumption for Oil.
I saw this movie on friday night. I had two major problems with it.
1) No character development - you never really established a connection with one character or another, part of the reason this was a problem was that there were too many characters it seemed, and to me they all looked pretty much the same, because they all have the standard military buzz cut.
2) Too much action - I like action movies, I really do, but there was just too much action and not enough plot in this movie. Going along with the whole character thing, you never really knew which characters were doing what where. I came out of the movie rather confused.
The movie seemed to have had a very good message, but all that got lost in the scores of characters and events going on.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
In some ways, our involvement in Afghanistan has a clear moral justification and purpose...
Ah yes. Kill more civilians than were killed on Sept 11th, and replace one band of thugs with another (only these ones are on our side (in much the same way that bin laden himself was on our side...)). Also, don't cry too hard when you can't actually get your man, so that the massive increase in political power at home and internationally can stick around for a while longer.
Very clear. Very moral. Very justified.
Jeez, Katz. I expected better of you.
-------------------------------------------------
charlton heston is more of a man than yo
But as it dragged on more and more, oddly enough, it had given me the opposite feeling that it probably should have - I felt ashamed of being an American - of watching us try to fight someone else's war, genocide or not. I'm sure there's some truth that was missing from the movie, but it has to make you wonder...
It definitely did make me sit down and think later on as to why so many other countries in the world dislike us. If this movie was propoganda, it was certainly not pulled off correctly.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
did it show the part where the american soldiers rape and torture somolians, or did only the canadians do that?
Black Hawk Down is a political movie
Not according to Stephen Hunter at the Washington Post. It's a battle movie, not a war ("political") movie.
Talk to them...After all if we just talk about our problems, everything will be fine...
;->
There's actually been a surprising influx of news stories about fuel cells lately. I don't think it'll be long before Bush is championing this as a new source of energy that will keep Americans autonomous, or something like that.
-------------------------------------------------
charlton heston is more of a man than yo
The Ranger motto is Sua Sponte "Of Their Own Accord". Check out this site.
The US SEALs have a tradition of never leaving a man on the field of battle. I don't know about the Rangers, I'm pretty sure they've left plenty of men on the field of battle.
So, if a person is known to oppose a certain group of people it invalidates his arguments against them?
His so called "visceral hatred" means nothing if he can provide evidence and argue logically. In fact, his "hatred" (="political passion" to some) makes him dig deeper into the deep, dark secrets than an average Joe Sixpack. That makes him a better source - not worse.
Since when did a movie review become an editorial? I feel I got a lot more of Ignorant Citizen Katz's views on American Imperialism than I did on what he thought of the movie.
Movie Review equals Did you like it or not? Was it done well? Well directed? Well Acted? etc.
Movie Review does not equal Did you agree with the politics? What are your politics?
Get a grip. It's bile like this review that makes me want to set home page preferences to exclude such drivel.
:::Horrendous Experiences Make Amusing Anecdotes:::
...has there been such an engrossing movie about Americans getting their butts kicked (well, yeah, there was Pearl Harbor, but we kicked theirs by the end of the film). I've never been in combat or in Mogadishu either, but Black Hawk Down made me feel like I was there, at least for a couple of hours.
But it's pretty funny that Katz had to warn of plot spoilage for a movie based on a historical event. What next, a plot spoilage warning on the History Channel?
Why? He's a fucking clueless ignorant moron. This is typical of his writing - almost unresearched (i mean he watched the movie, but that's it); baseless assertions; poorly written; the list goes on..
Sure, this movie is different...It's a political anti-war statement...and Jerry Brukheimer is also responsible for Armageddon - nail in coffin.
The problem is that such movie present only one side , "the patriotic ethical one" of the matter, and present it as if it was good (US coming to rescue) versus bad (somalian war chief). But reality isn't clear cut "black and white" it is mostly gray (and all the clor of the rainbow). There had been vested interrest there if you take care to read all the report circulating around there (and if you do not reject them as "anti american propaganda"). Now I am not saying that those report are true. They may be biased. But one has to wonder, for example, why intervene in Somalian (to stop people "stealing" food), whereas leave masaker and genocide go on in Rwanda. Maybe Rwanda lacks raw ressource to be interresting... But bottom line is this : As long as you put an historic event in film you are going to stray from the truth. If only because raw historical event are boring to the mass without a bit of blood, sex, explosion, treason, and heroic acts.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Including a quote from Noam Chomsky completely blows your credibility. Also, what BS is this : "the timing of the film is no coincidence". The movie was started long before Sept 11.
There are three principal reasons for the Somalia disaster (not just the US casualties, but allso the large numbers of Somalian casualties.)
1. Mixing of peace keeping/humanitarian mission with direct military action. What the hell did the leaders think would happen. If troops start taking part in combat operations they are no longer neutral observers and should expect to be attacked.
2. Denial of AC130 gunships and armored vehicles. If the US would have had AC130's and armor the event would have been over quickly and the loss of life would probably have been less all around.
3. Insufficient forces. President Bush sent in nearly 26000 troops to Somalia, but when Clinton took over he removed all but about 4000.
You cannot blame Bush for Clintons' mistakes. When Bush was in office he had sufficient force strength (and the Somalis knew it, so were much less likely to do what they did under Clinton) to do what was necessary.
"Black Hawk Down is a political movie about what happens when dumbass politicians and an ignorant citizenry send people off to die for no good reason anybody can think of (unlike Afghanistan)."
Unlike Afghanistan? It's exactly the same my friend. American imperialism is what's going on here, and even if we say we're fighting so called terror, terror is in fact what we are spreading. The more land we can subdue, the more money we can make exploiting it. This is how our country has been running since 1776. Simply because of 9/11 doesn't all of a sudden make everything we do righteous. Bush has talked about sending troops to Somalia again (this time to hunt terrorists). Why? Because we failed to take control of the region and 'stablize it' earlier (Black Hawk Down). I agree with 'dumbass politicians and an ignorant citizenry', but I think you are part of that ignorant citizenry.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
The men who fought on the ground that day didn't give a lick about the politics that put them there. To many of them, it was the opportunity of a lifetime; to add to the history of what being a Ranger has meant throughout history. The movie skimmed the surface of it, but it can't really be well understood by those who have never been there. I have not read Mr. Chomsky's work, but I'm confident that his concerns where not shared by the men who were under the gun that day.
From what it looked like the movie accomplished its objective, capture the fast pace of urban combat and convey it to the audience. The lack of character development is a statement about the lack of being able to focus on anything in a fast unfolding situation. It was enough to get out alive for those who were combatants. I doubt they had time to focus on much of anything, except a narrow field of view in which an enemy might suddenly appear to take your life, or the life of the man next to you.
Oil, politics, power, corporate greed. BS.
Mission Accomplishment, Honor, the Creed.
BTW - For the Record - it's "I Will Never Leave Behind a Fallen Comrade".
if sept 11th didn't happen this movie would have gotten a rating of 2/5. The movie doesn't really tell us in the way of a story what we don't already know. US marines and rangers get stuck up the creek without a paddle and have to fight their way out. That's it. 30mins for the setup, 1 hour of fighting. The fighting drags on and on and on. halfway through the movie I was getting quite irritated sound of repeated gun shots. If there's any reason to watch this movie it is to see how marines and rangers fight in the city. Although I don't think it deviates from the truth that much, the level of action is quite intense. I don't think ordinary somali citizens were quite that brave as they were portrayed in the movie.. other than maybe perhaps to give the audience the impression that this was really a tough opponent.
did you forget to take your meds?
Blackhawk Down by Mark Bowden is a great read! I asked for it for Christmas so I could read it before the movie.
After reading it I am not sure if I want to see the movie to avoid the post-book let down.
It weighs in at almost 400 pages and is pretty detail oriented.
There were two things that stood out in the book that I hope they hit in the movie:
1) Mogadishu as a place of anarchy and kids with guns.
2) The feel of 15 hours of battle. The book works as it describes what each hour feels like.
Blackhawk Down by Mark Bowden.
Anyways, I take some offense at the "ignorant citizenry" bit. Am I to educate myself on every fucking thing the gov't does? This is a hallmark of American society. We, at least what appears to me to be a large majority, trust our gov't to do the right things.
You have just pointed out what the problem with democracy in America today is. For a democracy to truly work it requires an educated populace that is well informed about the issues of the day and participates in electoral activities frequently so as to give politicians feedback on what actions they like and dislike.
Sadly, a lot of Americans are like you and think that their duty in a democracy doesn't extend beyond voting along party lines (if they do vote at all) in what has slowly become a popularity contest akin to high school elections where discussion of the issues or of the past performance of incumbents is not debated but instead mudslinging and name calling are the order of the day.
Anyway so this isn't completely offtopic. In real life, the character played by Ewan McGregor in Black Hawk Down is based on real-life Army Ranger John "Stebby" Stebbins, who, aside from being a hero in the Battle of Mogadishu, is now a convicted child molesterwho is now serving a 30-year sentence for raping and molesting a young girl.
This film is a factual account of what happened, it ties in with the interviews of the soldiers I've seen. Not all opinions are equal, some people are just plain wrong, and the people calling this American propaganda, or calling the mission in Somalia American Imperialism are simply wrong. The fact that they disagree with the story doesn't make the movie propagada, it makes them wrong.
The preamble at the beginning really skimps on the politics, this is not a film about the politics of Somalia or about the humanitarian mission turned hunt for Aidid. The film is almost entirely about the events and firefights directly related to the mission to capture Aidid & his top officials. It doesn't glamorize the mission or the US role. People calling this propaganda are the same fools who think a U.N. humanitarian mission in some East African country nobody has any aspirations towards is somehow American imperialism, they are fools, no other word fits them as well. They should get better informed and perhaps even see the movie before passing judgement.
The reason Aidid was declared an enemy was a massacre of Pakistani UN troops, the film even mentions this very briefly in the preamble.
Mr. Katz's review seems to follow the government approved propaganda.. Here is a story from "The Independant", a London newspaper, with a different take on the events in Somalia:
1 3
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=1140
Thats not in not in the film you say? gosh. America needs heroes, Hollywood provides them & a flag waving patriotic sanitised version of the truth. Didnt mention the reason yanks got stomped on was that they carpet bombed civilian residential areas the day before. Oh no we wouldnt do that.
As with WTC dumb yanks brought it on themselves, got what they deserved, then whined, then used it as justification for slaughtering civilians.
and all I need is MSN (®)! I can check my email, play games, go shopping, anything! MSN puts the world at my fingertips!
All I need to do is open Internet Explorer, and type in various URLs. For example, Diaper Pail Friends, I go here. and it works. Amazing!
Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.
Uhhh... is the plot not a matter of public record, published in magazines, books (one in particular named Black Hawk Down), and of course TV news for several weeks after it happend?
Who in the hell *doesn't* know how it ends?
You need to tune up your BS detector. Relief effort? Yeah, it was about relieving Somalia of obstacles to US capitalism, not about feeding people. Read the post "BlackHawk Down = Bullshit" and get a clue.
Fried ice cream is a reality. - George Clinton
You know, goatse.cx would make a great movie. Who is with me?
- The BOFH Troll
A similar view...
The Ranger Creed:
Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession. I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high "esprit de corps" of the Rangers.
Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air. I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier.
Never shall I fail my comrades I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong, and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the tasks whatever it may be. One hundred percent and then some.
Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.
Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word, I will never leave fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.
Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.
Gee great way to argue. Chomksy is bullshit for being against the US government's actions, the substance of his arguments do not matter to dollops like you. Thank you for clearing this up for me.
Don't you realize that the general population doesn't remember the facts of the situation, they only listen to the soundbytes. The key to politics is not to make bad soundbytes.
Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org
January 8, 2002
On Alternet
I went to a war last night, and for two and half hour had my adrenaline pumped and my patriotic heart strings tugged by U.S. soldiers in battle, bravely tracking down and trying to capture the enemy. No it wasn't Osama, because the movie which felt like it might have taken place in the rubble of Kabul was actually a replay of the battle of Mogadishu in l993.
The film is Black Hawk Down, an account of elite ranger and Delta force soldiers fighting the good fight. Their mission, the publicity flyer tells us, "to capture several top lieutenants of the Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, as part of a strategy to quell the civil war and famine that is ravaging that country." The action is non-stop only the outcome is disasterous. Nineteen Americans were killed along with l,000 Somalis before U.S. forces were withdrawn in an intervention that started nobly and ended in one of the bloodiest messes you can imagine.
The movie showed what the TV news of the current war has not: actual combat, and the feelings of those engaged in it. You see soldiers fighting with great courage, but they are not motivated by a cause or an ideology; they fight to protect each other, for personal survival. Obvious is that U.S. forces have a clear advantage in terms of helicopters, communications, etc. But in the end they are defeated by the determination of a far less organized urban guerilla force that sees itself defending its hometown against a foreign intervention. And like the TV news accounts of Afghanistan, the movie comes to us context-free, with a twisted and distorted perspective that simplifies that conflict beyond recognition.
Black Hawk Down also seems part of a propaganda strategy aimed at Americans, not people overseas, where it is unlikely to win many hearts and minds. Notes Larry Chin in the Online Journal: "True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned ro le as U.S. war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released Black Hawk Down, a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 U.S. raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to 'set the record straight.' The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself."Forget the revelations that one of the story's big heroes, in real life, later gets convicted as a rapist. Forget the dramatization formulas. Just think about the impression left with the audience, and how that perception has little to do with reality. After watching the film, which made me uncomfortable because it showed how senseless the U.S. policy was as well as how ineffective, I also realized how little it conveyed what really happened in that tortured land.
The film starts with signposts -- literally, writing on the screen, a few short paragraphs, to remind us what happened. The problem is the information is false. It implies, for example, that U.S. troops were sent to Somalia to feed the hungry. Not true. Later, I turned to David Halberstam's new book, War in a Time of Peace, which recounts the Somalian mishap in some depth.
Halberstam's book mentions, but does not detail, the bloody background: The massive crimes of the Somali dictator Siad Barre, who the U.S. backed and who Somali warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid ejected. It also does not fully explain how the stage was set for a confrontation, and how the U.S. provoked he fiasco that followed.
Halberstam does describe, however, the Washington debate and incompetence at a time when a policy launched by one administration was handed off to another. He tells us that the defense secretary told an associate, "We?re sending the Rangers to Somalia. We are not going to be able to control them. They are like overtrained pit bulls. No one controls them." The Rangers were indeed sent with great fanfare, to hunt and capture Aidid. Their mission failed.
Halberstam also describes the American hatred for Somalis, expressed in the much-bandied phrase, "The only good Somali is a dead Somali." Is it any wonder Somalis fought back? (In the movie, the battle looks like a racial war, with virtually all-white U.S. forces going mano-a-mano with an all black city.) Halberstam reveals how these forces made arrogant assumptions in Somalia, underestimating the resistance, and how the urban "battlefield became a horror ... a major league CNN-era disaster..."
You can read Halberstam's book, and many others, if you want to know more. But the point is that the romaticization of our modern warriors all too often misses the underlying political dimension of a conflict. On Jan. 7 it was reported that Green Beret Sgt. Nathan Ross Chapman, who was just killed in Afghanistan, may have been set up by so-called Anti-Taliban allies. In Somalia, we intervened in the domestic affairs and conflicts of another society. What started as war on hunger became a war on Aidid. We became warlords ourselves. In Afghanistan a war against terror became a war against the government, and may have put in power people who are as ruthless as the ones that were displaced.
Black Hawk Down is an action movie that tries to turn a U.S. defeat into a victory by encouraging you to identify with the men who fought their way out of an urban conflagration not of their making. But with Somalia looming as a possible next target in the war against terror, Black Hawk Down may turn into a recruiting film for revenge. While Al Qaeda was not visible in the film, there is evidence that they, too, were involved in the background of the events in l993, stirring up the violence and training the warlord militias. The deaths of journalists there, including Dan Eldon, the son of a colleague, was not mentioned.
Rambo-like films like Black Hawk Down, which seem realistic, can also accelerate the death of journalism itself, because high production values makes the dramatization of a political event far more memorable than actual news coverage. My advice: Miss it!
-- look, cheese ahoy!
For crying out loud stop with the drone war crap. Ok, our involvement in Afghanistan is only a drone war if you consider our allied "freedom fighter" forces (Osama used to be called that) drones. Everything that went down in Somalia was a bloody mess from the get go because there was no understanding of how to handle the mission. Think about it, is there really any reason to need crack special forces to ARREST people? They were sent in to do just that, so obviously the environment was hostile, the populous was hostile, they were running around trying to arrest people in a blasted war zone. Furthermore, until the gov't/military realize that you need to OCCUPY an area to do this sort of thing it will continue to happen. We are to some extent doing this in Afghanistan, but we're occupying the area with friendly forces. Did anyone maybe check up on what was needed to pull off something like the Mog raids? Kinda doubt it. Did they check up and see what might piss off the population even more? Doen't seem that way. As I understand it, one of the highest insults you can give to a Somali is to show them the bottom of your foot, but we had copter loads full of Spec Ops flying over the city with their feet dangling out of the doors.
Those men that had to live thru that hell deserve some sort of apology from those that put them there. The fault rests with whoever continues to believe that soldiers are police. They aren't.
A rep from the History Channel was on one of the national morning news shows yesterday morning. He says that the movie is in fact VERY ACCURATE, but albeit very limited in scope with repsect to rest of the conflict. Because the movie removes the firefight out of context, the History Channel is airing a documentary to give it that much needed context.
It airs Monday night at 9 pm.
The disjuncture these days between reality and what one reads in the press here is pretty much absolute. The other day I opened up the San Francisco Chronicle and found a piece hailing what the writer described as something most unusual for Afghanistan, a "peaceful" transfer of power. Now granted, the mostly civilian casualties are probably in the low thousands, and the most effective agent in that same transference of power was large cash bribes to all the relevant warlords, but even so, the word "peaceful" is scarcely the mot juste.
Now for disjuncture on another front, viz., Somalia, now touted as a prospective target nation in the war on terror. The new movie "Black Hawk Down" hails the heroism of U.S. special forces, in the form of the Delta Force and Army Rangers. The reality was somewhat different. Recall that prior to U.S. intervention by Bush I in 1993, Somalia had spent many years under the corrupt sway of Siad Barre, and that the role of U.S. oil companies was sufficiently strong for the post-intervention U.S. embassy to be located in the Conoco compound.
Citing famine in Mogadishu and in the southern part of the country, and an urgent need to restore order, President Bush I sent in the Marines. (The desire to distract attention from his pardon of Caspar Weinberger was another motive imputed by cynics at the time.)
The "humanitarian" intervention was touted as one of the first bouts of nation building of the New World Order, supervised by various nonprofit aid groups and protected by the UN-sponsored military force.
Soon, ugly stories of murder and torture by Canadian "peacekeepers" appeared in the Canadian press. To efface such unpleasantness, the U.S. press whipped up a frenzy about a local warlord called Mohammed Aideed, a sort of mini-Osama, and he became public enemy No. 1, target of various bumbling efforts to kill or capture him.
On Oct. 3, 1993, a team of so-called "elite troops" composed of the Delta Force and Rangers tried to nab Aideed again in central Mogadishu. Aideed was nowhere to be found, and soon the American troops became confused. Shortly after, they were surrounded by angry crowds.
There ensued a massacre in which somewhere between 500 and 1,000 Somalians were killed, along with 18 Americans. In 1999, Mark Bowden's book "Black Hawk Down" appeared. Bowden had worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer and had filed pieces right after the 1993 massacre. As the movie director Alex Cox points out in a recent, excellent discussion of "Black Hawk Down" in The British Independent, "It's interesting to observe how the story was retold over that time. An article by the former Independent correspondent Richard Dowden (not to be confused with Mark Bowden) the previous year makes the clear point that U.S. troops killed unarmed men, women and children from the outset of their mission: 'In one incident, Rangers took a family hostage. When one of the women started screaming at the Americans, she was shot dead. In another incident, a Somali prisoner was allegedly shot dead when he refused to stop praying outside. Another was clubbed into silence. The killer is not identified.'"
Now Bowden's original articles were filled with these unpleasant details. They are not to be found in the book. I am reliably informed that the publisher, Grove Atlantic, thought it politic to remove them, preferring an unblemished epic of American heroism. The only blemish that disfigures the release of the movie is the fact that GI John "Stebby" Stebbins, renamed Company Clerk John Grimes in the film, is now serving a 30-year sentence in Fort Leavenworth military prison for raping a 12-year-old girl.
Cox cites a subsequent U.S. Army investigation of organized racism in the U.S. Army, which concluded the problem was particularly serious in all-white, so-called "elite" and "Special Operations" units. Such racial separatism could lead to problems, the report warned, because it "foster(s) supremacist attitudes among white combat soldiers." (The Secretary of the Army's Task Force Report on Extremist Activities, Defending American Values, March 21, 1996, Washington D.C., page 15)
After the massacre, Canada, Italy and Belgium all held inquiries into the behavior of their troops. Canada placed some of its soldiers on trial for torture and murder. The U.S. never held any such public investigation nor reprimanded any of its commanders or troops for the Somalian debacle, now inflated by Hollywood into an heroic epic -- the ultimate disjuncture of truth from claptrap.
Go listen to your Rage Against the Machine CDs. Talk about extremist bullshit, this is it folks. Filled with Anti-American cliches and communist-leaning ideals, this article is as bad as the propaganda machine it claims to be exposing.
The movie is grisly and gory. You come away shaken by the horror of what these soldiers went through. And that's the point.
Bowden meticulously researched his book, and collaborated on the screenplay. He interviewed every single survivor of the battle he could find, spent time in Mogadishu himself, and based much of the book on interviews with one of the Deltas who was there. It's as historically accurate as a Hollywood movie can be.
One poster above claims this was part of a humanitarian mission, and that is pure bunk. Bush (Sr.) started a humanitarian mission; Clinton turned it into "Nation Building". We were trying to build a nation in our image from the ruins of a continuing civil war. The humanitarian mission was run by the UN and based at the stadium. This was a pure special operations mission, based separately at the airfield. This mission had far less to do with famine relief than it had to do with the grandiose schemes of a president who had no clue how and when to use the military.
Earlier that year the CIA sent the White House a report that Aidid was spoiling for a large battle which would bring him wanted publicity, warning of the threat to Task Force Ranger The White House ignored it. The ground commander requested heavier equipment as a result of "mission creep" (the mission had turned from famine relief to combat). The Clinton White House denied it. There are proper uses for the military, and "nation building" is not one of them.
Go see the movie. Be horrified by the death and destruction visited on our troops that night. Then think about that every time you see U.S. troops committed overseas. (Our current involvement in the southern Philippines is a perfect example from which you can draw strong similarities to Mogadishu.)
They are also other factors at work. If Israelis are faced with the choice of acknowledging that the whole Zionist movement is an ugly racist, genocidal movement or warping their minds to selectively observe only Palesitinian terrorists, and and ignore Israeli state terrorism, they will warp their mind to harmonize with the latter. The same principle applies to Americans, most are incredulous and will not believe the true nature of American realpolitik, they will choose to acknowledge only their media's propaganda of how the Yankees are helping the whole world.
... a patriotic American movie being directed by a foreigner? (I say patriot because "The kind of camadarie and loyalty depicted in this movie" is a great advert for the US Marine Corps.)
Elsewhere one can read about how, not suprisingly, our current mideast conflict has as much connection with oil as any in the past.
anonymous coward suits you well.
Coward
First mistake is the attempt to discredit the film based on Hollywood's "post-9/11 government-sanctioned role as US war propaganda headquarters" an objectable premise that has not fully been established. It also forgets that movies take several years to go from green light to release and Black Hawk Down was done filming prior to Sept. 11.
The film clearly shows that the mission in Somalia is not in humanitarian aid in the first sceen of the movie. I'm not going to describe the sceen in detail but if you've seen the movie you know what I mean. Basicaly there is a U.N. food dump being siezed by Aidid's forces and the U.S. Ranges can't stop them because it would violate the rules of engagement.
There are also two celebrities you meantion, Clinton and Chomsky. The discussion of whether the mission was a Clinton blunder or a Bush Sr. blunder is irrelevent unless you happen to feel the need (through your political afilliations) to defend Clinton from any tainting on his record. Thanks for sharing Chomsky's "corection," but at the end of the movie (not really a spoiler), the credits tell us that 1000 Somalis were killed by American firepower.
Here's what I'm getting at. The article you posted is trying to correct the film and discredit it based on the idea that it glorifes war and was a justification for our military action. However, Black Hawk Down is probably the first war film in ten years to not glorify war. That is what the army likes about the movie. Black Hawk Down is a film about the strugle of individules. It is about houw they fight to protect one another when the mission is stupid and polititions have them fighting for no good reason. Please see a movie before panning it.
"mostly civilian casualties are probably in the low thousands" in Afghanistan?
Ahem, BULLSHIT!
The casualties were combatants, and thats where the bombs were dropped: on AL Qaeda and Taliban operational locations. And unliek the GW, PGM's were used for a vast majority of strikes. There were at most a dozen reported (from credible sources) "missed" strikes that resulted in civilian casulties, number less than 1000 as a direct action by US forces.
Cite your sources. Or else admit that you are making the numbers up in an attmept to back your very biased anti-American position
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I watched this movie yesterday afternoon. I have also read the book. The movie was nothing like the book -- the amount of pure spin in the movie was sickening. Why did the movie completely ignore the Somali's side of the story? There was a reason why the entire city rose up and attacked the US soldiers -- they were sick and tired of their disruptive presence, and decided that the "evil warlords" were easier to tolerate than the US soldiers.
Before you pass any judgements, read the book too. Please.
I think the underlying theme of Black Hawk Down is money. Well the same happens to almost every movie made. Except maybe those small budget films like the Blair witch project, but even that was made to further the casts ability to make money in further movies. New movies need some important characteristics to succeed. They need:
1. An original Idea (at least to the target audience)
2. A genre that targets and audience that will pay money to watch the movie
The original idea has been something that almost everyone in the media world has had to face. With the background of movies its very hard to create this "original idea". That's why reality TV shows and real life movies have become so popular. An although the concept of reality in itself is not a original idea, its story in itself is dependent. When at the beginning of the movie it read "This happened" the movie gets a big push. The rest is history.
Black Hawk Down is a shoot em up gun battle with lots of action. This target audience is easy to make movies for, because it seems all the want is a few million dollars of special affects and a lot of action scenes, acting doesn't really mater. Black Hawk down is made up of 1 part acting and 30 parts action. And although this makes a simple script, the plot does not get the push from actors like Saving Private Ryan had. In Black Hawk Down this didn't mater the story un-foiled and told itself.
Black Hawks target audience was Americans. The on slot of patriotic films has crammed us with pictures of Mel Gibson running into battle and Ben Affleck stepping into a cockpit. It sells movies, it happened, and damn the special effects look great but the most important thing it sells.
In conclusion Black Hawk Down was a good movie and a great action movie. Its plot was thick from reality and action battles. Its an American patriotic film aimed for Americans watched by Americans and playing in American and Canadian theatres. I'm sure hollywood will be making lots of money on this one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=1140
Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the history of U.S. military intervention in the Third World knows that "humanitarian aid" is just the latest buzzword to justify the strategic maneuvers of the economic and political interests that run this country.
I mean, does John Katz really think that movies like this are *not* meant to stir up patriotism and propagate the myth that U.S. foreign policy is somehow meant to "help" humanity? Or is this movie meant to "balance" all those movies about, say, how the U.S. military trains and props up deathsquads and brutal military leaders throughout Latin America? Oh, wait, there aren't any movies like that, only grim reality...
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every time the US involves the Army outside its borders, it's for oil. Afghanistan? Oil. Somalia? Oil. Serbia? Vietnam? Germany? Oil. Heck, it's a national obsession that affects civilians, too -- when I was travelling for business did I bring back Colombian coffee, Chilean wine, Bahamanian rum? No! It was Colombian oil, Chilean oil, and sweet, sweet Bahamanian oil! We'll get it all, I tell you! We'll drain Lake Michigan, and use it to store beautiful black oil! Oil will run from our taps! Every lawn will be slick and dark and luxurious!! Our children will suckle from vast wells!! Our streets will be flaming canals!!! And around the world, people will hail the United States of Oil!
my precious, my precious...
What does this movie have to do with Afghanistan? Oh, right, it's a movie about the premiere military force in the modern world beating the snot out of a third world country for some "idea" or "value." I feel bad for those who think this "war" in Afghanistan is a justified exercise. Notice how quickly the focus changed from "get Bin Laden" to "get terrorism"??? The last time we fought against or for an "idea", it was called Vietnam.
I loved LOTR but best movie of all time? No effin way - and neither is Black Hawk Down, thank God The Godfather is back in it's rightful place at #1
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The movie is actually pro-military and anti-war. This is probably a good thing. Pro-military in that it was supported by the pentagon, and delivers the message that wasahington politicians shouldn't tell the military how to do their job. It is anti-war because you see that war is hell. It is definatly a propaganda piece, but not obnocsiosly so.
Jeez. You just have to fucking say it, didn't you?
You couldn't go one single review without trying to slip some bullshit political agenda in there, huh?
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
Bush lied to us when he said that Somalia was of no strategic importance. Any person who can find Somalia on a map can figure that out. If you control Somalia, you have control of the southern tip of the Red Sea, and in medium range missile range of the southern Arabian peninsula. They also erred by pulling out the C-130 gunships.
Yes Somalia was/is important, and yes we did it for the oil companies that are friendly with and in business with the Bush family. Cheney must also answer for this.
If we get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, look for us to go after Somalia on the pretext of fighting terrorism. No, we need the airbase. Other areas we could use would be Asmara Eritrea, or Addis Abeba Ethiopia, but we would have to show them the money.
We do have a history in Eritrea. It was a NSA listening post for decades.
Clinton couldn't pull out because that would have reinforced the election year propaganda that he was anti military. So he was as much a victim as he showed moral weakness by thinking political instead of doing what was right. That can be applied to nearly all politicians.
photosMy Photostream
Whats so frustrating about your argument is that you manage to brush off a tremendous amount of effort in research without adding or substituting a single shred of fact in it's place. It must be extremely comforting to just except the status quo, like a good "sheeple" as you say.
The evidence for the extreme brutality/racism exhibited by the USA throughout it's history is so easy to find that if you don't see it you must be working real hard.
And don't feed me a line about weak moral perspectives. If you can handle slaughtering and torturing generations of people to preserve your precious lifestyle then you are a sick human being.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
In Vanilla Sky there are 5 major characters --- Black Hawk Down has a good 20-30 that are meaningful and they are broken up into many separate groups for much of the film. Keeping the characters straight can be difficult since they're all wearing the same clothes, all have the same haircut, all are dirty and bloody. IMHO, Black Hawk Down has a much more complicated plot than Vanilla Sky.
Don't forget they got support from the pentagon in making this movie. And it's undeniable that one of the messages of the movie is that Washington bureaucrats shouldn't tell the military how to do their job. So keep that in mind. However the story is really about the bravery and loyalty of those men. Those Delta Force guys, especialy MSG Gary Ivan Gordon and SFC Randall Shughartwill make you proud to be an American.
Vietnam? really?
This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
It's true the movie was started before 9/11, but the release date was pushed forward a couple months to make it more marketable given the war in Afghanistan and the possibility of another intervention in Somalia. That's what makes the timing "no coincidence".
... everyone could see that movie had huge degree of political correctness. I mean, c'mon, you didnt see any civilians killed. Thats ridicilous, all those ppl running around, and not one civilian goes down in error... so much for making "saving private ryan a tv special"
;-)
as long as you understand that, movie is good & fun... but dont expect it to be real thing
On the U.S. media ignoring civilian casuatiesi es.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-civilian-casualt
A report on civilian casualties in the Canadian pressT MLTemplate?tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tgam/c ommon/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=B igAdVariableGenerator&date=20020119&dateOffset=&hu b=international&title=International&cache_key=inte rnationalAsiaHeadline¤t_row=3&start_row=3&nu m_rows=1
http://www.GlobeAndMail.CA/servlet/GIS.Servlets.H
An academic study of civilian casulties
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
Why is it so hard for you to believe, given the massive scale of bombing and the fact that the definition of who are "Taliban troops" can change from moment to moment, that a few thousand civilians got killed? Aerial bombardment of civilians has been a standard feature of U.S. military practice since the 1940s.
Talk about a disjucture with the truth - the write of the above post has a severe one in many places.
Fact: The unit was not "all white".
The quote you cite is taken out of context. But allowing that context in rather ruins your attempts to smear the Rangers with a racism chage, doesnt it?
"U.S. troops killed unarmed men, women and children from the outset of their mission"
Try reading up on the whole truth, not the half truths fed to you by this obviously ant-military author.
There are cited incident reports of the Somli thugs using women and childre as shield in combat. Indeed there was even one guy firing his machin guns at pinned down us soldiers from between a woman's legs, while covered with children sitting on his back. Remember, its the Somali who endangered those children. What would you have the soldier do in that situation?
What would YOU do in that situation, with a guy killing people around you, injuring your friends, and threatenting your life? The combat deaths did not happen in the peacefulness of your living room - and the situation was hardly immoral as you insinuate it to be. The immorality belongs to the first cause - the Somali warlords and their illegal combatant thugs who endanger the lives of thier own citizens by using them as combatant shields.
Also remember the laws of war (Hauge Convention), and article 1, to wit:
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies,
but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following
conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
of war.
The "illegal combatant" problem is indemic to situations where tribalism is rampant, like Somalia and Afghanistan.
Also do not forget, had the Somalis not been starving and systematically killing thier own people, that pushed the US into intervening (the ambush of Pakistani UN troops monitoring food distribution), and the Afghani sponsorship of terroists that killed thousands in NY, there woulc have been NO us presence there. The US ignored Afghanistan killing its citizens for a decade in terms of US military action, as we also did Somalia.
The blame is not on the US military, its squarely on the triblist and collectivist systems that spawned the atrocities in those nations that ended up drawing the US into action.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
That's why this review was written by Katz, and not Richard Marcinko, a former SEAL and a great writer. Read "Rogue Warrior," more political insight in that than anything Nim Chimpsky will ever fathom.
Katz and Chimpsky, knock both their heads together and you still won't come up with a triple digit IQ.
Here's the UN's own backgrounder on UNOSOM I, which unfolded from limited coordination teams to a Security Council resolution imposing an arms embargo to another unanimous resolution calling for a humanitarian assistance mission. Note particularly that the United States did not participate at this time. A $700B aid program began, but soon deteriorated under the conflicting aims of local warlords:
In other words, the situation in Somalia deteriorated severely before the United States ever got involved. The forces most viciously opposed by the warlord Aidid were fellow Muslims from Pakistan. In December, the UN Security Council again passed a unanimous resolution (remember: this includes not only the five permanent members, but also the temporary regional members in rotating seats) to authorize the United States deployment of a security force. The US forces remained there under a marginally improved security profile, but the UN remained concerned as aid was not getting to the provinces and looting and violence against humanitarian workers continued.
Finally, under UNOSOM II, the mandate of the force was expanded as follows:
That's a pretty heavy workload, leaving little room for "guarding oilmen", and again, this was the goal that all members of the UN Security Council agreed on, with the US presence providing a backbone but hardly the majority of the forces. This phase led to a hopeful, temporary peace agreement and plans for an interim government and disarmament of the warlords.
At this point Aidid's cooperation deteriorated swiftly.
So, we had a US presence as part of a UN humanitarian mission that was starting to deteriorate under the determined opposition of a warlord who stood to lose power under the interim government. After non-American forces tried to disarm his troops, he massacred them, placing the entire mission in danger. If the troops themselves were at risk of outright mob violence and murder, how safe were the humanitarian workers? The next step was explicitly authorized by the United Nations Security Council members. Even though the United States had been expecting to ramp down its presence in Somalia under UNOSOM II, setting a firm withdrawal date of March 1994, the new conflict with Aidid required them to participate in an escalation of the mission, which involved several obvious things like taking control of the radio station and forcibly disarming those militia they could. After the June massacre the United Nations issued an arrest warrant for Aidid. (The UN, not the US.) This is when the Army Rangers went in, later joined by the Delta Force squadrons and temporarily the AC-130 gunships. Even so, it was not until October of 1993 that the fatal raid took place.
Were there Western oil interests present in Somalia? Yes. Was there contact with the representatives of those oil interests? Yes. Would a stabilized Somalia be profitable to Western oil and business interests? Yes. But it would also be a humanitarian boon to the people of Somalia, and this was the basis for the 100% agreement of the entire United Nations Security Council on every step of the UNOSOM mission. The US didn't even want to play a central role, with plans to quietly slip out and let the UN run things, until the murder of UN peacekeepers forced a response.
Amazingly, with a globalized economy and free trade covering most of the globe, there is a high likelihood that US or Western business interests will already be present wherever there is a conflict. Noting this is hardly evidence, in and of itself, of murkier, craven motives. To say "we were there to protect American oil interests" is to trivially oversimplify a very complex situation.
Alex Cox, the author of that column [that inspired Dan's piece, not the parent post here], is well known as a left-leaning muckraker given to conspiracy theories. (He's also had at least a moment as a good director.) Cox's narrative "capriciously" suggests that Bush moved unilaterally by "sending in the Marines", but this part of the mission proved relatively peaceful. It was not until the unprovoked massacre of Pakistani soldiers that the UN mission character changed to one of confrontation with Aidid. Cox sneers that the Marines' main task was "guarding oil men" and places scare quotes around the word partners (why not just come right out and say lackeys?). In any case Cox deliberately omits in his story any mention of the massacre which provoked the unanimous response of the United Nations Security Council. Nope; Cox has it that we just "decided that Aidid was [our] enemy". What a foul lie, Mr. Cox. In describing the fatal raid, Cox omits any mention of the deliberate RPG attacks on US helicopters, and suggests that the US troops became "confused" when surrounded by an angry crowd and proceeded to "massacre" Somalis. Cox fails to note that this angry crowd was armed and had been primed over a period of weeks for just such an ambush. The RPG attacks on the helicopters involved planning, procurement, training, and strategizing. Cox would like to have it merely be an "angry crowd" but it was a disciplined militia force that hid inside an angry, incited crowd. Then he goes off on an "all American elite forces are racist" riff that probably satisfies his muckraking impulse but fails to ask a single soldier whether he harbored racist feelings for the people of Somalia. (Most of them didn't; they thought they were doing a good deed, boy scout style.) There was a major error when the Quick Reaction Force attacked an Aidid shura meeting with a missile; accounts vary as to how many died, but it does seem likely that not all of them were military lieutenants.
The indignation Cox puffs up at American "war crimes" is somewhat diminished when one actually reads Bowden's book(which does not omit mention of the incidents, as he suggests). The prisoner praying in custody in an Army 6x6 took an incoming bullet, as Bowden and other sources make clear. The woman who was shot near the crash site was apparently unarmed, but the book adds the information that she was stepping into the street to "spot" for nearby gunmen and pointing out the soldiers' position, making her a combatant. A tough call in any situation, even a firefight for your own life. Update: I've found the Richard Dowden piece that Cox implies is based on independent reporting, but in fact it's entirely derivative of the publication of Bowden's book and Inquirer series, and the wording is Dowden's own spin.
Really, that's a disgusting little piece of distortion and I've lost any respect for Alex Cox now that I've read it. I mean, if you're going to tell this story and say not one word about the massacre of the Pakistanis, how can you lay any claim to honesty? The word Pakistan does not even appear in the article. Cox: for shame.
Tastes Like Chicken
Here are some links to coverage about "Black Hawk Down" from indymedia.org:o wn.mp3
...The moral of the movie seems to be 'Americans get tougher'. No mention is made in the movie of the Oil Concessions that many people believe were the real reasons for the American Intervention...
..a people friendly event
.
---
"Expose Black Hawk Down"
by Amnesty International of Northern Arizona Uni
www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=116352
---
MP3 Statement...
clients.loudeye.com/imc/mayday/expose_blackhawk_d
---
International ANSWER has issued a call to leaflet/picket theaters and set the record-and U.S. past and current aims and actions in Somalia and that region-correct.
madison.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2680
PS. I still intend to see the movie, 'cause of the special effects', eh ?
---
Thankyou for showing me your wonderful gun, please allow me to lie down on the ground - Extract from UN Cambodian PhraseBook
I think Katz exposes the unfortunate opinion of most Americans:
If Americans aren't getting killed or if it doesn't endanger the "American way of life" (read: endanger oil fields, so that Americans can't drive their SUVs to the corner shop), then it's not worth getting involved.
I saw the movie the day it was released nation wide. I have a few observations about your comments.
The movie does have a few flaws. Big deal. All movies do. The simple fact is that this movie has relatively few, which in my book, is a good thing.
As for all of you bitching about the reason the US was in Somalia. Get over it. This movie wasn't meant to address the political agenda that took the Rangers and Delta operatives into Somalia. It was meant to tell the story of the battle that took the lives of 18 US soldiers and countless Somalian militia and civilians.
In case you people haven't noticed, soldiers don't choose the places they go, the missions they do, or the reasons why they do them. Their job is one simple task. Get it done.
For the rest of you bringing up issues about the potential for racism in a primarily white elite military unit, and the poor judgment of a US soldier with an under age Somali, all I have to say is that again, these things are not within the scope of the movie. Do you really want to sit through a six hour movie so that all of these little before and after details can be brought out? I don't. I guess the only thing I can say to you is read the news. Then you'll hear all of these things.
Bottom line? It was a good movie, some Hollywood license was taken, but overall I liked it.
Hey, bucko, where are your citations? Or will you admit that you have no clue how many civilians have been killed? Where are your citations that *only* combatants were killed? Or can you provide a citation that details how the word "combatant" has been redefined.
i a/ newsid_1740000/1740538.stm
i a/ newsid_1616000/1616325.stm
/ ne wsid_1603000/1603181.stm
a si a/newsid_1621000/1621921.stm
i a/ newsid_1619000/1619332.stm
i a/ newsid_1693000/1693451.stm
Here are some references re: alleged civilian deaths:
1)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_as
------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_as
Note in above link:
"Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that two 500-pound (225-kilogramme) bombs had accidentally dropped on a residential area north-west of Kabul on Saturday, and that on Sunday a 1,000-pound bomb had been dropped on a field next to an old peoples' residential home in Herat.
She insisted however that all Taleban claims regarding civilian casualties were inflated."
a) Residential area; b) "Casualties were inflated" implying that there HAVE been civilian casualties.
2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas
"Last Friday, a US Navy jet dropped a 2,000-lb (900-kg) JDAM in a residential area near Kabul airport in Afghanistan. The intended target was a military helicopter about a kilometre-and-a-half away."
3)http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_
4)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_as
5)
5 allies killed by US planes (might technically be combattants, but on our side... Not civilians...):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_as
Whew, that was hard. Took me all of 8 minutes to come up with that brief list.
So, are you now going to educate my as to how the BBC is in error/lying? Oh, and you will of course provide references, right?
So are you saying that 25 Pakistanis died fighting for Chevron? It was an international humanitarian effort. Check what you are eating, because you seem to be short a few brain cells.
I'm a Marine, so I just so happen to know a little something about this subject...
As far as I know, no one has an actual motto to that effect. If there is a unit, it would have to be a regiment or smaller, because I've never heard it. It's a standing tradition in the more elite of our country's forces. The Marines, SEAL's, Delta Force, Rangers, etc. all will never leave a man behind. It's not just about keeping the faith with a fallen comrade - it's about doing for others what you would want done for yourself. Through WWII we tended to bury the dead where they fell, Normandy being a perfect example. I think we did the same in Korea, though I'm not completely sure. In Vietnam, however, we started bringing all of our dead home. Who the hell would want to be buried in that shithole? Vietnam marked the point where the concept of never leaving a man behind became burned into the consciousness of the military. Nobody wanted to contemplate their body being left behind for the North Vietnamese to have fun with, therefore they were gonna make damn sure they didn't leave their buddies, either.
One thing I would like to point out to those without much understanding of military operational planning - this mission was a butt-fuck. Whoever planned it must have said - "I think I'll get a shitload of my men killed today!" Seriously, the Marine Corps would have never gone in there with that small of a contingent and that few supporting arms. They needed at least double to triple the infantry and an armored tank column. The commander should have refused anything less when he was told to go without armor. Once ashore in Somalia, the Corps never went anywhere without bringing at least a few tanks. Why? They were the one piece of equipment that scared the Somalians shitless. They also were pretty scared of us in general. They referred to the Marines as the "white-sleeves" and wouldn't attack us (we roll our cammie sleeves differently than the Army). "Green-sleeves" on the other hand, meant open-season because they usually didn't have tanks. Probably due to the fact that the Army has a chip on its shoulder and wanted to prove it could be as lightweight as the Marine Corps.
None of these were failures of those men on the ground, though. They were the incompetent betrayals of their commanders. Delta Force and the Rangers fought bravely and I have the deepest respect for them and their actions that day.
did a piece on the rangers' escape from Mogadishu; it also dealt with the disappointment felt by the military when the operation was considered by the administration to be a failure, because they _did_ get their man, and their frustration when they were pulled out of Somalia. But the best part, and what made this the best Frontline ever, was that the story was told mainly by the rangers themselves. These dudes were totally amazing - articulate, intelligent, down-to-earth, just talking about what happened to them and their friends, and their narrative made this the most powerful Frontline ever. See it if you can.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Thank God those of you who are American's live in this country where you can regurgitate that tripe without fear of incarceration.
And just as much thanks goest to those Americans who volunteer to go out to foreign lands and die so you can stay back in your crack den and burn your brain into a nice pile of ashes while dreaming up theories about how the man is trying to keep you down. If you really cared you would have said something in the intervening 8 years, but that would have required more than two and a half hours of sitting in a theater staring at a screen wondering where you'll get your next dime bag, which is probably to much for your remaining three brain cells to handle.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you are smoking it up, keeps you from doing anything but a few ignorant posts on the Internet...makes me think of "Mostly Harmless" and "Smoke up Johhny".
...propaganda:
Remember that this movie is based off a *BOOK* that was written well before Sept. 11th. The movie was completed before Sept. 11th, and only marketing, computer generated imagery, and the actual WTC and Pentagon disasters have *delayed* the movie's release.
This movie would have came out in Fall of last year, but like the Arnold movie, "Collaterial Damage" its content was deemed too violent at the time after Sept 11th.
If you think this movie is propaganda, or are quick to call it propaganda, what are you going to do when they release a movie about the WTC and Pentagon attacks? You realize the same result of the future movie about those events is going to justify the actions then taken in Afganistan, unless it is directed by Oliver Stone, who thinks that the planes were crashed into the WTC by the government of the US.
Just because you are upset that a movie comes out that actually portrays what US forces have had to deal with overseas (esp. when Somalis would get shot down, only to have another Somali pick up their gun and fire.) doesn't mean you have to call the movie "propoganda" in order to demonize it. I can assure you that Mogadishu would have been no more willing you help *you* that day than a US solidier.
You're free to disagree with what happened that day, but unless you have some basis of understanding that you can get us to relate to, don't be surprised when the rest of us ignore your cries of: "That is so wrong! That's not what happened!".
The Ranger motto is NOT "Leave no man behind." The official motto is "Sua Sponte", meaning "Of Their Own Accord." The unofficial motto is "Rangers lead the way." The next unofficial motto might be "Hoo-ah", but I have never heard of a motto "Leave no man behind", except maybe as general words to live by.(?) As usual, Katz is making crap up because it fits his current sensationalist needs.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts." -- Cecil Adams
I have seen this movie before it went on wide. "Black Hawk Down" represents a kind of non-stop violence that you'd expect from a real war. Based only on the artistic quality of the gore in this movie, I would have to vote that this movie exceeds what we saw in "Saving Private Ryan". But, that's where it stops. There is no art in the depiction of violence that engulfs the audience the moment the movie starts till the end.
Another point this movie misses, or ignores due to racism on the part of the original writer of the "Black Hawk Down" newspaper articles -- later a book --, was the amount of lives lost on the part of the innocent Somalians. Please understand, in this brief encounter, there were 18 odd American soldiers dead, and 500 (FIVE HUNDRED) Somalians militia and civilians (according to American-Somalian relationship Org -- as published on CNN). More than 1000 others were maimed. I find it hard to believe that anyone would ever want to make a movie glorifing this, and then completely forgetting the other side of the story.
Another thing that would stand out is the fact that this is a war of the white man against the black. The US soldiers (specially Rangers and spec ops) as dedicated here are white Americans (I found it odd that this was actually the case among the real Rangers). American soldiers were armed to the teeth, over six feet tall, with similar Aryan looks that made it almost impossible to follow the various soldiers (not that it matted, cause this was just about violence -- even though some of the acting was good). Another point I'd like to point out and point out in BOLD, is the fact that we've introduced a new racist word to depict Somalians, the "Sammies", I found it as offensive as "N*gger". This is plain tasteless. And just goes to show how clueless the average American film makers are.
The only redeeming features of this movie are, the good acting on part almost unknown actors, and brilliant violence that would be more appropriate on another planet, against creatures that were not human (Thank you).
Furthermore, this movie represents all that is wrong with the American mentality. This movie is an excellent example of the reason why the rest of the world truly dislike America. This movie is an ugly gash on America, and I am not proud of saying this is a product of our culture. This movie almost justifies the violence that others inflict on us. I am saddened by how people might be influenced by movies such as this.
Two thumbs down.
But as it dragged on more and more, oddly enough, it had given me the opposite feeling that it probably should have - I felt ashamed of being an American - of watching us try to fight someone else's war, genocide or not. I'm sure there's some truth that was missing from the movie, but it has to make you wonder...
It definitely did make me sit down and think later on as to why so many other countries in the world dislike us. If this movie was propoganda, it was certainly not pulled off correctly.
Thank you for getting it. This is not a rah-rah movie, I think the reviewers all see the director's name and assume it's Rambo. It's not -- read the book and you see quite clearly that its not a pro-american tale. Even though the movie toned down a lot of the dual nature of the book (as they eliminated a lot of stuff) it still makes the point quite clearly that even had we succeeded in eliminating Aidid, Somalia would still be at war, and people would still be dying.
That said, i didn't think it was a great movie because there were a few spots where they were clearly tugging on heartstrings unnecessarily. The power of the book is that it detailed so meticulously that you couldn't help but feel sorry for everyone caught up in the situation...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
for one simple reason: the guy is serving jail time for the rape of a child under 12 years old.
i wish this was a troll, but it's not.
the name of the guy was changed, according to Hollywood execs for "artistic reason."
this was on TV about a week or two ago.
(unlike Afghanistan)
I saw the preview of the movie, and I thought that the parallels between Afghanistan and Somalia were incredible. (No point in going into details here, not the place for it.)
But that could just be because I don't live in the U.S. (I'm in Canada and I know we have more to be ashamed of that the U.S. in that war).
I'm just shocked that so many people see this movie as patriotic, that's incredibly shameful. People should take this movie as a warning.
-growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional
This article is so full of holes it's not even funny. It's sad. This is an example of someone's blinding hatred of the US. The poster didn't even write this which leads me to believe that he's done little reading of the facts and instead has gotten all his information filtered through Anti-American bigots like Noam Chomsky.
Am I saying that being Anti-American automatically disqualifies you from making a statement? No, go ahead. That's your right, protected, I'll remind you, by soldiers willing to put their lives on the line. But, I will emphasize that a character like Noam Chomsky, is not known for his objectivity and I don't care how good a fucking linguist he is, has a tendancy to run with the conspiracy theorists.
For instance, where does Chomsky get his figures for the number dead? And even if 10,000 Somalians were killed, that number pales in comparison to the 300,000 that had died of famine, not even counting the number that died as a result of the warlordism, gun-running, and civil war that had destroyed the nation. I particularly like this sentence, "Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard" Since when has Chomsky become the yardstick with which to measure accuracy?
In short, when I write my responses, I am not trying to exonerating US forces, and I do not hate anyone un-American, but I am not going to let some punk run roughshod over the facts and make baseless accusations because of a blinding hatred of the United States.
Now, onto the response.
You bias is showing when you attempt to completely exonerate Clinton of the fiasco. Read "Wrong Turn in Somalia", by John R. Bolton. It is written by a former Bush Sr advisor, and tends to be a little light handed with Bush, but it is an excellent Foreign Policy analysis of what happened to the mission during the transition from Bush to Clinton. Bush wasn't a saint, but Clinton has more than a little blood on his hands.
As to the movie and the book, I've seen the movie, and read the book. The movie is quite true to the book, save a few details. Moreover, the book was not some sort of flag waving little ditty. Bowden includes elements from all sides to give a well-rounded picture of the situation. Yes, there is an emphasis on the US forces, but the point is, Bowden didn't simply write a one-sided account. As for the mission of Task Force Ranger, no, it wasn't there to feed the hungry. They were sent there to give the humanitarian missions some breathing room to carry out their mission. There is no myth about that, so don't even pretend there was. That helicopter attack was reported and not covered up, so where's the lie?
The historical inaccuracy of this article is showing particularly in this paragraph
"After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens"
1) They were not Special Forces. SF guys are Green Berets. They were Rangers from one of the Ranger Battalions and Delta operators.
2) There were 2 Black Hawks brought down.
Get your facts straight before you start telling people that what they believe on foreign policy is wrong. The fact that this article gets those details incorrect leads me to not believe anything his says.
"The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration."
What's funny is that this article loves to paint left-wing liberals as the innocents in this debacle. There were none. The bias is amazing in this little piece.
"right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House"
He is hardly a right-wing extremist.
This next part is full of stuff in the article that just pissed me off:
"CNN film reviewer Paul Tatara describes "Black Hawk Down" as "pound for pound, one of the most violent films ever released by a major studio," from "two of the most pandering, tactless filmmakers in Hollywood history (Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott)" who are attempting to "teach us about honor among soldiers."
Well, gee, what do you think war is? You send people into war-torn countries on humanitarian missions, or peace keeping missions, and people die? They get shot? Blown up? As for "honor
among soldiers", yeah, it actually exists. I won't
call US Soldiers saints, they're not, but that honor does exist in mass quantities. I think the film did a good job of showing a variety of characters. There are soldiers who are there for moral reasons because they truly want to help, and there are soldiers there just to blow shit up.
"What viewers see is "brave and innocent young American boys" getting shot at and killed for "no reason" by "crazy black Islamists" that the Americans are "just trying to help." (Subtext one: America is good, and it is impossible to understand why "they hate us." Subtext two: "Those damned ungrateful foreigners." Subtext three: "Those damned blacks." Subtext four: "Kill Arabs.") "
This paragraph is full of assumptions and low blows. 1) The Islamic faith in Somalia is not played up in the movie at all. It was also not a factor in the attacks. You are drawing a dangerously presumptive causal relationship between the two. The fact is, the people in Somalia just happened to be Islamic. Period, end of sentence, next question. 2) I wouldn't call America good. America has done some awful things in its period of existance. But compared with other regimes, and the warlords in Somalia, we're pretty good. You are not going to get a perfect country, and I challenge you to find one. 3) The fact that the people were black, or Arab, was NOT, I repeat NOT, played up in the movie or the book at all. This article is now just making baseless accusations.
"What viewers will remember is a line spoken by one of the "brave soldiers" about how, in the heat of combat, "politics goes out the window." (Subtext one: there is no need for thought; shoot first, talk later. Subtext two: it is right to abandon one's sanity, morality and ethics when faced with chaos. Subtext three: when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, America was right in embracing radical militarism and extreme violence, throwing all else "out the window.") "
He was talking about the individual soldier and his personal tactics in trying to stay alive. Not the strategy of a nation. Get it right.
"Considering the fact that Somalia is one of the targets in the next phase of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," the timing of the film is no coincidence"
Actually, it is. This movie has been in the making for at least a year now and the release date was supposed to be back in November. I can't explain why it was late, but it just happened to fall in with Sept 11.
In short, get your facts right.
Humorless sig goes here.
That is incorrect. It was released before the new year so it could be considered for the Oscars. It's nothing new to debut a movie right before the new year so it will be fresh in the Academy's mind when nominating and voting occur.
To see how Americans see themselves abroad. I remember the case of US pilots who had been captured by the MPLA in Angola in the 1980s. The then Reagan government was offended that these heroes would be held in an Angolan prison. The Angolans replied that these guys had bombed bridges and roads in a country with which their government was officially at peace.
Americans (and yes, Europeans) are generally detested in Africa, despised for their arrogance and tolerated because they are rich. Most of the suffering in Africa can be traced to the structures that have been set-up to extract oil, diamonds, or other minerals for the benefit of external parties. Corruption of governance, outright theft of entire countries, genocides, mass clearances from mineral-rich lands, small arms traffic, war, starvation... it's a vicious cycle that repeats over and over. The rich get richer and the poor suffer and die in conditions that most of us cannot imagine.
This film is of course a preparation for the coming US invasion of Somalia. Softening them up with movies is possibly kinder than using missiles. But don't confuse this film with entertainment. It's purpose is to blame the Somalians for their problems. Blame the victims, then hit them. It's a classic and horrifyingly effective strategy.
My blog
Just see the support that CNN is giving to the film!!!
iv CNN International.
The movie ill only appear here in about 2 months and i think on the rest of the world too.
But i just see CNN talking about it all over the NEws with reporters on LIVE from Somalia, Old Military personal involved talking about, just dont stop!
Really im starting to put some concerns on CNN as being the most Independent World NewsTV.
U just go to their website, and u dont see anything else than US ARMY all over!!!
Last week i was on ma way to see "THE LAst CASTLE" but like this one, to see what !? American FLAG, PROUDE AMericans of da great country they hv got there, How better hey are over da rest of da world, and this and that!!
But that isnt da worst, da worst is paying money to see that!
Like da subject says i dont need these bullshit!!!
The person who the main character was modelled after is now serving 30 years in jail for child molestation (or some such horrid crime). Of course they changed the guy's name in the movie, but it doesn't matter much. I have trouble watching a movie that centered around someone who has done such things.
Copyright 1993 The Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times
January 18, 1993
THE OIL FACTOR IN SOMALIA FOUR AMERICAN PETROLEUM GIANTS HAD AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFRICAN NATION BEFORE ITS CIVIL WAR BEGAN. THEY COULD REAP BIG REWARDS IF PEACE IS RESTORED.
By MARK FINEMAN
DATELINE: MOGADISHU, Somalia
Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.
That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S.-led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.
According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.
Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake.
But corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified. And the State Department and U.S. military officials acknowledge that one of those oil companies has done more than simply sit back and hope for pece.
Conoco Inc., the only major multinational corporation to mantain a functioning office in Mogadishu throughout the past two years of nationwide anarchy, has been directly involved in the U.S. government's role in the U.N.-sponsored humanitarian military effort.
Conoco, whose tireless exploration efforts in north-central Somalia reportedly had yielded the most encouraging prospects just before Siad Barre's fall, permitted its Mogadishu corporate compound to be transformed into a de facto American embassy a few days before the U.S. Marines landed in the capital, with Bush's special envoy using it as his temporary headquarters. In addition, the president of the company's subsidiary in Somalia won high official praise for serving as the government's volunteer "facilitator" during the months before and during the U.S. intervention.
Describing the arrangement as "a business relationship," an official spokesman for the Houston-based parent corporation of Conoco Somalia Ltd. said the U.S. government was paying rental for its use of the compound, and he insisted that Conoco was proud of resident general manager Raymond Marchand's contribution to the U.S.-led humanitarian effort.
John Geybauer, spokesman for Conoco Oil in Houston, said the company was acting as "a good corporate citizen and neighbor" in granting the U.S. government's request to be allowed to rent the compound. The U.S. Embassy and most other buildings and residential compounds here in the capital were rendered unusable by vandalism and fierce artillery duels during the clan wars that have consumed Somalia and starved its people.
In its in-house magazine last month, Conoco reprinted excerpts from a letter of commendation for Marchand written by U.S. Marine Brig. Gen. Frank Libutti, who has been acting as military aide to U.S. envoy Robert B. Oakley. In the letter, Libutti praised the oil official for his role in the initial operation to land Marines on Mogadishu's beaches in December, and the general concluded, "Without Raymond's courageous contributions and selfless service, the operation would have failed."
But the close relationship between Conoco and the U.S. intervention force has left many Somalis and foreign development experts deeply troubled by the blurry line between the U.S. government and the large oil company, leading many to liken the Somalia operation to a miniature version of Operation Desert Storm, the U.S.-led military effort in January, 1991, to drive Iraq from Kuwait and, more broadly, safeguard the world's largest oil reserves.
"They sent all the wrong signals when Oakley moved into the Conoco compound," said one expert on Somalia who worked with one of the four major companies as they intensified their exploration efforts in the country in the late 1980s.
"It's left everyone thinking the big question here isn't famine relief but oil -- whether the oil concessions granted under Siad Barre will be transferred if and when peace is restored," the expert said. "It's potentially worth billions of dollars, and believe me, that's what the whole game is starting to look like."
Although most oil experts outside Somalia laugh at the suggestion that the nation ever could rank among the world's major oil producers -- and most maintain that the international aid mission is intended simply to feed Somalia's starving masses -- no one doubts that there is oil in Somalia. The only question: How much?
"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said Thomas E. O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia's northern coast.
"You don't know until you study a lot further just how much is there," O'Connor said. "But it has commercial potential. It's got high potential . . . once the Somalis get their act together."
O'Connor, a professional geologist, based his conclusion on the findings of some of the world's top petroleum geologists. In a 1991 World Bank-coordinated study, intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations, the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.
Presenting their results during a three-day conference in London in September, 1991, two of those geologists, an American and an Egyptian, reported that an analysis of nine exploratory wells drilled in Somalia indicated that the region is "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil." A report by a third geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, said offshore sites possess "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas."
Beydoun, who now works for Marathon Oil in London, cautioned in a recent interview that on the basis of his findings alone, "you cannot say there definitely is oil," but he added: "The different ingredients for generation of oil are there. The question is whether the oil generated there has been trapped or whether it dispersed or evaporated."
Beginni 1986, Conoco, along with Amoco, Chevron, Phillips and, briefly, Shell all sought and obtained exploration licenses for northern Somalia from Siad Barre's government. Somalia was soon carved up into concessional blocs, with Conoco, Amoco and Chevron winning the right to explore and exploit the most promising ones.
The companies' interest in Somalia clearly predated the World Bank study. It was grounded in the findings of another, highly successful exploration effort by the Texas-based Hunt Oil Corp. across the Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Peninsula nation of Yemen, where geologists disclosed in the mid-1980s that the estimated 1 billion barrels of Yemeni oil reserves were part of a great underground rift, or valley, that arced into and across northern Somalia.
Hunt's Yemeni operation, which is now yielding nearly 200,000 barrels of oil a day, and its implications for the entire region were not lost on then-Vice President George Bush.
In fact, Bush witnessed it firsthand in April, 1986, when he officially dedicated Hunt's new $18-million refinery near the ancient Yemeni town of Marib. In remarks during the event, Bush emphasized the critical value of supporting U.S. corporate efforts to develop and safeguard potential oil reserves in the region.
In his speech, Bush stressed "the growing strategic importance to the West of developing crude oil sources in the region away from the Strait of Hormuz," according to a report three weeks later in the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey.
Bush's reference was to the geographical choke point that controls access to the Persian Gulf and its vast oil reserves. It came at the end of a 10-day Middle East tour in which the vice president drew fire for appearing to advocate higher oil and gasoline prices.
"Throughout the course of his 17,000-mile trip, Bush suggested continued low (oil) prices would jeopardize a domestic oil industry 'vital to the national security interests of the United States,' which was interpreted at home and abroad as a sign the onetime oil driller from Texas was coming to the aid of his former associates," United Press International reported from Washington the day after Bush dedicated Hunt's Yemen refinery.
No such criticism accompanied Bush's decision late last year to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Somalia, widely applauded as a bold and costly step to save an estimated 2 million Somalis from starvation by opening up relief supply lines and pacifying the famine-struck nation.
But since the U.S. intervention began, neither the Bush Administration nor any of the oil companies that had been active in Somalia up until the civil war broke out in early 1991 have commented publicly on Somalia's potential for oil and natural gas production. Even in private, veteran oil company exploration experts played down any possible connection between the Administration's move into Somalia and the corporate concessions at stake.
"In the oil world, Somalia is a fringe exploration area," said one Conoco executive who asked not to be named. "They've overexaggerated it," he said of the geologists' optimism about the prospective oil reserves there. And as for Washington's motives in Somalia, he brushed aside criticisms that have been voiced quietly in Mogadishu, saying, "With America, there is a genuine humanitarian streak in us . . . that many other countries and cultures cannot understand."
But the same source added that Conoco's decision to maintain its headquarters in the Somali capital even after it pulled out the last of its major equipment in the spring of 1992 was certainly not a humanitarian one. And he confirmed that the company, which has explored Somalia in three major phases beginning in 1952, had achieved "very good oil shows" -- industry terminology for an exploration phase that often precedes a major discovery -- just before the war broke out.
"We had these very good shows," he said. "We were pleased. That's why Conoco stayed on. . . . The people in Houston are convinced there's oil there."
Indeed, the same Conoco World article that praised Conoco's general manager in Somalia for his role in the humanitarian effort quoted Marchand as saying, "We stayed because of Somalia's potential for the company and to protect our assets."
Marchand, a French citizen who came to Somalia from Chad after a civil war forced Conoco to suspend operations there, explained the role played by his firm in helping set up the U.S.-led pacification mission in Mogadishu.
"When the State Department asked Conoco management for assistance, I was glad to use the company's influence in Somalia for the success of this mission," he said in the magazine article. "I just treated it like a company operation -- like moving a rig. I did it for this operation because the (U.S.) officials weren't familiar with the environment."
Marchand and his company were clearly familiar with the anarchy into which Somalia has descended over the past two years -- a nation with no functioning government, no utilities and few roads, a place ruled loosely by regional warlords.
Of the four U.S. companies holding the Siad Barre-era oil concessions, Conoco is believed to be the only one that negotiated what spokesman Geybauer called "a standstill agreement" with an interim government set up by one of Mogadishu's two principal warlords, Ali Mahdi Mohamed. Industry sources said the other U.S. companies with contracts in Somalia cited "force majeure" (superior power), a legal term asserting that they were forced by the war to abandon their exploration efforts and would return as soon as peace is restored.
"It's going to be very interesting to see whether these agreements are still good," said Mohamed Jirdeh, a prominent Somali businessman in Mogadishu who is familiar with the oil-concession agreements. "Whatever Siad did, all those records and contracts, all disappeared after he fled. . . . And this period has brought with it a deep change of our society.
"Our country is now very weak, and, of course, the American oil companies are very strong. This has to be handled very diplomatically, and I think the American government must move out of the oil business, or at least make clear that there is a definite line separating the two, if they want to maintain a long-term relationship here."
Fineman, Times bureau chief in Nicosia, Cyprus, was recently in Somalia.
T HREE Belgian paratroopers from an elite battalion appeared in court in Brussels this week facing a court martial, following allegations that they and their colleagues tortured and may have murdered Somali civilians, including children, during the United Nations operation in the east African country four years ago.
e 1. html
A Brussels military court prosecutor recommended one month's prison each for two Belgian paratroopers, Kurt Coelus and Claude Baert. The case of their sergeant, Dirk Nassel, was delayed at the request of his defence.
The government and senior military officers have been deeply embarrassed by the recent publication of photographs in a Flemish newspaper showing a paratrooper apparently urinating on a dead body and a group holding a youth over a campfire, during the UN operation, Restore Hope, in 1993.
It is also alleged that members of the unit forced Somali children to drink salted water and eat worms and vomit. Another photograph shows a trooper standing with his boot on the head of a Somali man, presumed to be dead.
Perhaps the most shocking claim, that a youth suspected of theft was left locked in a metal container in scorching temperatures for two days until he died, is still under investigation.
The photographs and details of some incidents have been given to the authorities by a former paratrooper who was a member of the unit, part of a detachment of 1 000 Belgian troops stationed north of Kismayu in southern Somalia.
The men are charged with threatening behaviour and physical violence. More courts martial are expected later in the year.
The accused soldiers are not the first to go on trial, nor are they the only national group alleged to have mistreated civilians.
Canadian troops have been accused of killing civilians in Somalia and torturing a youth to death; the report from an official investigation is due to be published shortly. In Italy, an investigation is under way after photographs were published showing a soldier applying electrodes to the hands and genitals of a naked man. Two generals who led the Italian contingent have stood down.
In a trial two years ago, nine Belgian paratroopers were acquitted of human rights abuses, though one was jailed for five years for killing a Somali civilian to cover up a theft. Their officer was given a suspended sentence for carrying out mock executions on children.
General Jean-Yves Minne, the military auditor leading the investigation, said: "We have very serious indications that things happened just as they were reported. We are talking about a series of problems with a very limited group in a limited zone."
The incidents occurred during the United States-led UN intervention in Somalia, which tried unsuccessfully to depose the local warlord Mohammed Farrah Aideed. They have highlighted the problems of disciplining an international force acting on behalf of the UN. Although the troops were taking part in a UN operation, they came under the disciplinary command of their national officers.
The UN has said that in future operations it will insist on troops deployed on its behalf observing the Geneva Conventions, which they have not automatically been required to do before.
http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97june2/3jul-unpeac
The US could be energy self-sufficient if it used energy at the rates comparable to some of the more energy conserving advanced nations in the world. Our standard of living wouldn't be affected and we wouldn't lose any jobs.
US dependency on oil is not much different from US dependency on drugs: it's an addiction that makes lots of people very rich. In the case of oil, the oil companies love it, the military loves it, the car companies love it, and the politicians love it. Think about what trouble these powerful groups were in if we weren't dependent on oil, and it won't surprise you anymore why this country doesn't seem to be able to come up with decent energy conservation measures.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that this is some grand, deliberate conspiracy. Oil-friendly politicians, for example, probably think they are doing the right thing anyway. But it's a well-established scientific fact that you can't take money from some group and have your decisions not be influenced by their wishes.
Was the killing of the 18 American soldiers. That was the only only thing that was justifiable. These were racist killers who rotured, raped and murdered many innocent Somali women and children. I spit on an instution that would glorify such actions with a movie. How shameful it is to be American today. SHAME.
Well, Chomsky also has spent more time than you or me studying these issues and groups. Has it occurred to you that his "visceral dislike" may be based on the facts that he has uncovered? His antipathy is likely the effect, not the cause, of his studies.
I don't read Chomsky's writings. But I do read other books on 20th century US history, and the more one finds out, the more uncomfortable one feels: the US government has done lots of really sleazy things throughout its history. And at fault is a complacent citizenry that has nearly blind trust into their government, that is ignorant of political and economic interests in the world, and that questions almost nothing the government says or does. I suggest you read up on your US and world history a bit and start questioning your government--that isn't only your right, it's your duty in a democracy.
It's not just the United States that has bombed civilians.
It was also the standard military practice of the Imperial German Air Force Zeppelin's in World War One, the Turkish Air Force before world war one, and the Italian and Japanese Air Forces in the 1930s.
Then in the Second World War, the United States, Great Britian, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany all bombed cities. Of course much of German and Japanese industrial production had been moved into homes, so it could be argued that it was a military target.
During the Cold War, the United States, Soviet Union, Iraq and Iran all bombed civilian targets. But during the Vietnam War and Gulf War, the United States kept thier heavy bombers out of urban targets for the most part. The Soviet Union and Iraq both used chemical weapons on civilians.
I'm not arguing with the fact that "civilians" have died in Afghanistan, but it's not just the United States that has bombed civilians, and if you look closely at US bombing tactics in the last 40 years you will see that the United States goes to great pains to avoid civilian loses, sure there are mistakes made, but it's very hard to achieve perfection when dealing with all the variables in combat.
I watched Black Hawk Down opening night. I'm still reading the book. I was almost half-way through the book when I saw the movie and I'm glad I was reading it. A lot of the stuff in the movie is just barely mentioned, so reading the book will help you understand the movie a lot better. They did an amazing job of keeping the movie to the "script" of the book. They changed a few things, but not much, so it pretty much follows the book. Awesome movie though. Definately one of the best I've ever seen.
United States Refuses to Abide by Geneva Convention http://www.civil-rights.net/
WHY ARE WE CALLING FOR PROTESTS AND BOYCOTTS AGAINST "BLACK HAWK DOWN"??
This movie is a blatantly racist attempt to create support among the U.S. public for a new war against Somalia. According to the Bush Administration, Somalia is at the top of the Pentagon?s list of countries to be the next major target of the so-called ?war against terrorism.?
In his review of ?Black Hawk Down,? New York Times movie reviewer Elvis Mitchell wrote that the movie ?converts the Somalis into a pack of snarling dark-skinned beasts ? it reeks of glumly staged racism.?
What actually happened in Somalia in 1992-93?
On December 12, 1992, the U.S. sent 28,000 soldiers into Somalia under the cover of the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) in what they said was a ?humanitarian mission? to bring food to starving people. The invasion came when a several-year drought that had taken tens of thousands of lives was actually abating. At the time, the evening news showed images of thousands of starving Somalis. What people didn?t see was U.S. troops - not delivering food - but instead engaged in daily gun battles and bombing raids in heavily populated neighborhoods. In ten months, more than 10,000 Somalis died as the U.S. engaged in aggressive military action against those who resisted.
Resistance among Somali women, men and even children to the foreign troops became widespread. The Somali people have a long and proud history of resistance. They fought for the freedom of their country from Italian, French and British colonialism - and they resisted the U.S. attempts to recolonize their country.
In the beginning of the military intervention in 1992, Colin Powell, at the time the chairman of the Pentagon?s Join Chiefs of Staff, called the invasion a ?paid political advertisement? for the Pentagon at a time (less than a year after the end of the so-called Cold War) when Congress was under growing pressure to cut the war budget. Powell opposed calls that that money be used instead for jobs, education, health care, housing and other social needs, and instead sought to maintain the $300-billion-plus military budget.
In reporting on the U.S./UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM), the human rights organization Africa Rights stated that troops ?have engaged in abuses of human rights, including killing of civilians, physical abuse, theft ? Many UNOSOM soldiers have also displayed unacceptable levels of racism toward Somalis ?? These abuses included opening fire with machine guns against unarmed protesters, firing missiles into residential areas and outright murder civilians, including many youth. The report states ?UNOSOM has become an army of occupation.?
Pro-war propaganda
Since September 11, Bush administration officials have held meetings with Hollywood representatives regarding the content of the movies and other material they produce. In an October 17, 2001, meeting, Hollywood heads ?committed themselves to new initiatives in support of the war on terrorism.?
?Black Hawk Down? is just one of those movies, made hand-in-hand with the Pentagon. Weeks before the release of ?Black Hawk Down,? the Motion Picture Association of America held a private screening for senior White House advisers, and allowed them to make changes. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Oliver North, among others, attended the movie?s Washington DC premiere.
Hollywood spends hundreds of millions of dollars on pro-war, racist films like these - $90 million on ?Black Hawk Down? alone - while millions of people in New York and around the country are facing layoffs, evictions, cuts in health care, attacks on their pensions and more.
A new war in Somalia
?Somalia Possible Target? is now a common sentiment echoed in newspaper headlines and statements of Bush administration officials. In some ways, a new war against Somalia has already begun. In November, the U.S. government shut down the Somali-owned Al-Barakat money transfer company, which provided the only way for Somalis living out of the country to send back much-needed funds, known as remittances, which are often vital for family members? survival. Up to eighty percent of Somalis - which is hundreds of thousands if not milliosn of people - rely on funds sent by relatives livng outside of the country. This exposes the pretext given by the U.S. government for the 1992 intervention - said then to be a mission to help starving people - because now the U.S. is imposing measures that will cause Somali people to starve because they are unable to afford food.
The U.S. also shut down Somalia Internet Company, denying all Internet access to Somalis, and has severely restricted international telephone lines. This is really the beginning of a strangulation of the country.
Since the U.S. government cannot implicate Somalia in the events of September 11, they are attempting to justify a new military assault by implying that the Pentagon has unfinished business, that they have a ?black eye? and must return with a vengeance. This is the goal of ?Black Hawk Down.?
All those who believe in justice for the people of the world must take a stand against U.S. threats against Somalia, Sudan, the Philippines, Iraq, Colombia and everywhere else. We don?t know where the next war will be. The Pentagon has announced that it?s wartime all the time and they will select the targets. But we do know the U.S. public is being prepared to justify another bloody incursion into Somalia.
Protest and boycott ?Black Hawk Down? and organize to build the anti-war movement.
http://www.InternationalANSWER.org.
If you are organizing in your area, please let us know!
What "Somali" resolve? Chomsky implies that Aidid was supported by the entire Somali nation, which is obviously false. And if Aidid was so incredibly popular there, then why did he feel the need to kill all those "fellow" Somalis and starve them to death?
As for "corporate interests", well, there's really no point even going into that. Chomsky and his army of "critical thinkers" can rave all they want, nobody will pay attention to them.
Fragbait, there's only one problem with the strategy you propose: the US can't go back to full-fledged isolationism in the same way as before WWI because of its dependence upon... you guessed it, oil.
Someone in a post earlier was getting sick of people giving oil as the main reason for all the wars lately, but it's true. Until the US gets its oil dependence alleviated by either developing new power sources (fusion, etc...) or reducing its oil consumption, it will HAVE to keep its trade routes open to the rest of the world. It will also have to keep them secure, and try to get the best deal in all the negotiations regarding that trade.
Therefore, the usual bully attitude which works rather well. "I have planes, I have tanks, put up and shut up."
Some say that the US strategy goes beyond just securing oil supply, it attempts control over the world economy through the IMF and WTO. However, I would contend that it is not US strategy, but the strategy of the few robber barons of the new economy, holders of the world's gold reserves, who make US and EEC world policy. It's those people who aim for globalism, for a world economy.
There is one major flaw in that strategy, in that it is geared towards control of the masses by the few. And that will ultimately not work, or at least it won't work in the longer term. We need, as a race (the human race that is), to go beyond the individualism and think about humanity itself. Only then will we transcend the current cycles of wars for land, religion or resources.
Dreaming on...
ohh, you put me down with your articulate and well reasoned arguments. I guess I must be wrong.
LOL...another war BullShit. How many times they will show that they are so tough that they can make enemys eat C4s. Another bullshit from our great movie making industry.
yea, Im a coward. I wish I was a hero like an soldiers.
But the sight of women & children screaming and spurting blood as I riddled them full of bullets would haunt me as stepped up to get my medal.
I've repeatedly read in individual posts and in the partisan rags that Chomsky misrepresents his sources both in context and quotes in order to come to his conclusion. Yet I've never seen any examples in print. Just various claims of lies from "experts", along with claims of his rabid left wing ideology. And here we see it again without any examples presented as evidence. However, I have gone to the public library and conducted my own research into this matter. Here's why:
Some years back, right after Chomsky and Herman published Manufacturing Consent, I found myself in a debate at the Harvard Square Au Bon Pain with an Israeli who found Chomsky's work offensive. He made the claim -- as the previous poster did -- that Chomsky selectively misquotes, misrepresents context, and filters everything through anti-Israeli and anti-American presuppositions, therefore his analysis is biased and not of value. So, I asked him if he had ever checked Chomsky's references personally, but he hadn't. Nor did he think this was necessary as he pointed to an anti-Chomsky article which he provided in reference as proof of Chomsky's bias. This article made the same accusation, but it didn't provide any specific examples either, instead it simply quoted other "experts" who made these claims. I've yet to find anything in print which provides specific examples of misrepresentation of either the context or text of an article sourced in one of Chomsky's books or essays.
However, since at the time Manufacturing Consent was one of those books I was raving about and informally debating with friends, I decided that it behooved me to maybe check a few on my own just to be sure. So I blew an afternoon at the Boston Public Library checking up on a few references of personal interest and several just randomly selected. But I couldn't find a single example of misrepresentation of either the text or the context of any source material in the references I looked up. Not one.
Of course, I didn't check every one. So it's possible that there may be some bad references lurking somewhere in Manufacturing Consent, or any of his other works. If so, I'd be very interested in seeing a legitimate example.
It's one thing to say you think Chomsky's opinions stink and you think he's full of shit. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion. But to claim that he misrepresents facts and context demands proof, which I've yet to see provided. I really think that you should spend a few hours in a library and check this assertion on your own. You'll do yourself some good, and if you can find a legitimate example of his nefarious out of context lies I'm sure plenty of people would jump at the chance to reprint your proof.
Cheers,
--Maynard
eom
Here's the story,
You start it, WELL _Finish_ it
Who cares how many more Afganis than Americans - the had the government they wanted - they could have changed it - they didn't
You make a choice, you live with the results
As a movie, I felt it was of amazing quality, ranking up there with Enemy at the Gates, and leaving such drivel as Saving Private Ryan in the dust.
;)
As a historical work, well - let's face it, it's a movie. Movies tend not to be entirely accurate unless they're produced by backwater studios.
It occurs to me that Cerebus might think I'm refering to him when I wrote "you" at the end of my post. No, I realize he was requesting the same evidence I'm requesting. That "you" is directed to those authors several posts back such as Fnkmaster and others I have read, who made the claims of bias to which Cerebus replied.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Thank you L. Chin for you thoughtful piece on US foreign policy concerning Somalia and other situations. Most Americans do not take the time to research US foreign policy. I have been guilty of that until more recently. US foreign policy and US corporate law are boring topics that don't draw the interest of the general public, but they are very important and have very important consequences on us.
Americans seek news, but unfortunately we rely on being spoon fed news by highly filtered media sources such as corporate controlled news casts and papers. In the interest of these entities the truth is often not being told. Then when you mention someone like Noam Chomsky, people are in an uproar because the media giants that spoon feed us call him a radical, when the man speaks from facts that we dont' want to hear. Please people, do your research.
Let me follow up that little rant with some facts: In the 1980's Reagan called Osma Bin Laden (and other similar types) the modern equivalent of American's Founding Fathers. This is when they were recruited by the US to do our dirty work against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Osma Bin Laden wanted to remove foreign occupation, just like we wanted to remove British rule from America. Sounds pretty legitimate to me.
Now when the gulf war came about the US persuaded Saudia Arabia to allow US troops on their soil. This was the first time non-Arabic troops were allowed there. They were placed there to fight the threat of Saddam Hussein (another interesting story when you consider the US originally supported Saddam when he did what they wanted). With the Gulf war won, the US troops need not hang around the holy land of Saudia Arabia, but they did. This being Osma Bin Laden's home country, he wanted them out. Bingo - Bin Laden is now the enemy of the US because he doesn't agree with the foreign occupation. Wow he goes from being called the equivalent of a Founder Father of America to public enemy number 1. Hmmm... I smell something fishy.
Now let's consider the current "justifiable" war on terrorism. Even if Bin Laden is guilty:I could go on and on, but by now you might see my point is that we are very ill-informed. We have been dumbed down with highly biased, spoon-fed media. Americans are smart but we're not getting enough good sources of information. Try bringing all sides of the equations into the picture before taking sides. Use alternative news sources such a Alternative Radio (alternativeradio.org) to find out what pieces might be missing from main stream media.
As an exercise for the reader, try to find a definition of terrorism that is not biased to the West or that does not attempt to stir emotions. It's difficult to find an objective definition in part because the US would be guilty of it in Palenstine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicarugua, Libya and elsewhere.If your feeling angst about what to do, IMHO, the most effective way to address the situation is to employ Satyagraha (or non-violent active resistance). Gandhi has developed a beautifully effectvie recipe, and others after him have used it such as Dr.Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.
As one of our founding father said, "A rebellious spirit is essential for democracy" -- Thomas Jefferson
Let me leave my fellow Americans with this quote of Mark Twain's: Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it.
So you say what? I always thought It is generally believed != may be
Well, if you have to resort to selective reading, then I think I am winning this argument. From here:
perhaps adv. Maybe; possibly.
Therefore, It is generally believed
Bush and Co. were there for corporate interests. That's a fact - live with it, what ever the sugar is coating it for general american electorate.
I am not disputing that - my argument is that there are no rich oil reserves in Somalia. Whoever (Chomsky or Chin) said that, is a liar. There might have been other corporate or strategic interests (note the uranium mentioned above), but there are no credible sources given here. The only ones I can find support my argument. If you can find others, please post, otherwise it may be a good idea to improve you reading comprehension.
fuck off , if i recall it was the fucin brits who started all this crap hundreds of years ago.
so dont give us your bullshit
And of course the US government wouldn't send in the army unless it furthers their interest. Duh! Name one country that doesn't do that.
Where are we gonna get the hydrogen, sparky?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
2/3s of our planet is covered with it.
I am in the Army, serving in the Infantry. Quite a few of my senior NCOs were in Somalia and served with the Rangers. The intensity and severity of the situation over there has marked many of them, especially my Platoon Sergeant, forever. What they did was the hardest thing that anyone could do, and no civilian will ever be able to truely comprehend the effect that taking a life has on somebody.
My senior leaders like to impress upon the younger soldiers, not in the "yeah! kill them all" hollywood stereotype, but in a more somber and serious way; that sometimes, in order to survive, you have to do things that do not seem right to you.
That is what those soldiers did over there. And many of them are haunted -to this day- not by the fact that they had to shoot the civilians being used as human shields, but by the fact that the somalis were USING them as human sheilds.
BTW, there was no "carpet bombing", there wasnt even any air support. And I, nor any of my fellow soldiers would intentionally target civilians. For soldiers like that, you will have to look to the movies.
Reminds me of the time he sided with Pol Pot.
Those of you who want to read the real story (it was not told in US) Short summary: Read this
Dyslexics have more fnu.
There were two groups involved in this battle. Delta Force and U.S. Army Rangers. Delta Force is the most elite Army unit, which generally operates on their own terms. Delta Force is separate from the rest of the Army. They are not governed by Army regulations. Delta Force operatives use their own equipment, and generally do not wear rank. About 1 out of 100 Rangers ever qualify for Delta.
In this mission Delta Force was to clear the building and capture the men, while Rangers provided security.
Special Forces is an entirely different horse altogether. Special Forces were not involved in Mogadishu at all. Special Forces level of eliteness is somewhere inbetween Rangers and Delta. The mission of Special Forces is to teach.
"Black Hawk Down" - Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
The movie made a point in showing that the Somalis who fought the americans didn't do it because they were black or muslim or somali. They did it because it was a civil war.
They made a point of showing that the US agent who found out about the meeting was muslim. They showed Somalis celebrating the defeat of the americans... the also showed Somalis in the "friendly zone" joyously supporting the Americans when they returned. They showed Americans killing civilians and children in the confusion of the firefight... including a powerful scene where a grandfather walks in front of the convoy carrying the bloody corpse of his very young grandson... obviously killed by Americans.
The movie very accurately dipicted the large number of somalis who were killed and also very accurately portrayed that there were many civilians who just got caught in the middle. It did not villify the Somalis who fought the americans... It shows somalis fighters getting mowed down by american bullets and thier widows running out to them and dying too.... It shows the grief of a child who accidentally kills his father.
Granted, this is very subtle... but it is a subtle movie.. the characters only discuss the matter at hand and only make vague references to the politics..
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Also, the Saudi Arabia asked the Americans to help them out against Iraq, and asked them to stay to protect them against further aggression?
Your pro-bin-Laden crap doesn't stand a chance. There is plenty of evidence. The court only gives him a platform for his bullshit. Your "bombing killed more than the Twin Towers" claim is completely unproven (just a faith statement).
If I was listening to Pacifica and Indymedia all my life I'd be pretty stupid as well.
Aha. You fell into my trap. How do you get H2 out of H20? You crack it out...with a large amount of electricity. Where do we get the electricity?
You guessed it. Fossil fuels.
Hydrogen is not an energy source, like fossil fuels are. It is an energy transfer mechanism, like a battery. Unless and until we figure out how to make a large amount of electricity cheaply and cleanly, hydrogen as a fuel is a non-starter. (pardon the pun.)
Hint: Cheap clean power comes from one place: Nuclear. Too bad it's gauche to talk about that anymore...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
It's pretty sickening to see Katz post this saying that it's 'no good reason' to feed starving people. We went in to take out warlords who have been trained by the Al-Queda (Ie. Bin Laden - And yes, this HAS been proven to be the case. He trained those men to specifically deal with our forces on that day.) and stop them from total genocide. You guys REALLY need to stop looking for ways to bash Americans. We went in to SAVE people, the same way we went in to SAVE people in Bosnia, and Kuwait. If other interests can be protected at the same time, that's even better. In short, if you don't agree with the USA saving th world, you might want to move to some other country that we're going to have to bail out down the road anyways.
Handing trust over to a government defies the entire point of democracy. Democracy is a system in which the population is, in order to have the government that best suits it, required to monitor its government and ensure that it is doing its job. You can't just sit back and "trust" the government in a democracy, or you end up with presidents like--well, like Bush, or Clinton, both of whom had their severe faults, and got away with it.
---
I'm not a real anonymous coward, but I play one on TV.
Your distinction between Bush's and Clinton's administration is strained at best. And I include "Bush II: The Unintended President" as well in the administration list.
Clinton most certainly was spurred on by humanitarian motives. The warlords had turned the horror of a famine into a hell of intentional genocide. The only way out, to save maximum lives, was to destroy the warlords -- a huge task. Could the Clinton administration have done it? No, not with hysterical undermining of his authority at every turn in the military, the Congress, and the newly radicallized media channels. A President needs cooperation, and without it he is trying to sail a boat without being able to tack when necessary.
He bailed. Probably with the concurrence of his staff, both civilian and military.
Nation building? What exactly is Bush W. doing right now in Afghanistan? He has killed and imprisoned the leadership of the country whom he formerly supported, and replaced it with the warlords that people hated so much before the Taliban drove them out.
Remember also that Afghanistan did not attack us. A distributed network of fundementalists did. But we can't really get them, so we got the Afghanis instead.
So we are building a nation NOW in Afghanistan, with the warlords who had tortured their people in the early nineties. Oh my aching head...
So watch the mission creep. It happens. But in the case of the Somalis, we were really trying to save them from genocide. Demonizing, tiredly, President Clinton, is silly. We had not nothing to gain in Somalia but the ability to look at ourselves in the mirror. We didn't save people from Pol Pot, or the Serbs (until far too late), or even the poor people in the German concentration camps, not until it was far too late. We didn't care to know they were dying at the time it was happening. The Somali situation was being broadcast live. We couldn't deny the truth. Children were being tortured to death by starvation, and we could stop it.
At least in Somalia we actually captured the bad guy.
We went into Somali to save our souls; no one said it would be easy.
To give you the feeling that they are ALL your soldiers fighting for you. It was to convey that no single person is better than the other when doing their job. When you hear about whats going on with our men on Afgan soil, think of these people, and not Billy Bob the Delta Force hero.
You're not supposed to see them as individuals. You're supposed to see them as Fighting_Hero_05. The fact that they mainly stay nameless throughout the movie is because they are showing what the general military is like. These are your people dying for YOU. They don't want to make any character better than any other. They work together and should be seen as a collective force doing their job.
Actually Bush already is championing fuel cells. He killed one of Clinton's plans for more fuel efficient cars and is promoting more fuel cell research. Fuel cell research really is quite a ways along and is a very exciting solution. Everyone has been quoting large costs, but that is because it is still largely R&D and there are no economies of scale. The big issue is gettting hyrogen to fuel stations.
If the Military succeeded in Somila rather than politians pulling them out we woudl not be in Aganistan right now because we woudl have followed the link form the warlords to where they got arms which was Osma Bin Laden..
We were in Somila for a reason..
Unlike Politians Military always uses arms for some conrete reason whether politians want to admit what the reason is or not..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Now that I know that those forces were trained by Al-Queda to specifically deal with the "American Threat" it gave me great pleasure to see this. What we were doing was two fold, saving hundreds of thousands of people, and taking out really terrible people who kill thousands of people. Unfortunately, our men pay the ultimate price for what they have to do. And to me, it makes me proud to see what our efforts have been. My hearts go out to all the soldiers who fought that day to protect all those people, and to those who died.
"Anti-American" -- "Anti-military"...
When I hear these terms thrown around, I get very nervous. Check your pockets, and watch the news more carefully, because there is bullshit afoot.
It is possible to not be anti-military, and not be a traitor, and still look the truth in the eyes and spit. Are we killing civilians? How will we ever know? They've banned newsmen from the war. Another red flag that bullshit is afoot.
Really? How many tens of thousands were killed in the WTC? And you really think we've killed that many civilians in Afganistan?
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Perhaps you missed the tons and tons of civilians dying. Maybe to point it out to be even clearer they show the old man carrying a young dead child in front of the convoy who they nearly run over. Many civilians died in this movie, many women, many children. I think you were too scared to open your eyes and watch it.
Being a film fan as huge as they come I have strong misgivings about:
"This movie is visually rich, capturing the surreal atmosphere of Somalia in 1993"
While Blackhawk Down may be the current film that best evokes the emotion and intensity of modern warfare, any film production company that takes a subject as war, especially one as tragic as the conflict in Somalia that ended with dead US soldiers being dragged in the streets of that village, and presents it with the most magnificent, beautiful photography as possible, on the level of say an Aerosmith video (as we know Bruckheimer is want of doing ala Armageddon, Pearl Harbor) is distasteful in my opinion. Somalia was not a visually rich, surreal place, it was and is a graveyard of starvation and cruel warlords. I'm sorry but taking death and beautifying it is simply self-indulgent filmmaking...as "amazing" as the footage in Saving Private Ryan may seem it was still dirty filmmaking with flare ups and washed out images all over the frame. Please forgive my being a downer but IMHO, one should not take away with them a visually rich experience from a war film, but they should take with them lessons and thoughts of self-reflection about warfare and our place in this still dangerous world.
Adids forces were trained by Al-Queda and Bin Laden. Have anything more to say? We will win this battle in the end.
Those forces we died to were all people ultimately trained by people under Bin Laden. Perhaps you un-American hippies should move to another country until we're done with this man and his thousands of terrorist friends. We will wipe them all from the world.
Oh well, most of these leftists, fucktard, posters aren't in the US, so they are irrelevant.
Fuck you eurotrash. Your weak, socialist, bitches.
P.S. You socialist Canadians can suck my dick too
Oil:
e ws id_1152000/1152828.stm
0 23 .pdf
s o. pdf
http://www.hiiraan.com/May/oil_in_somalia.htm
http://www.netnomad.com/fineman.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/n
http://www.cdi.org/adm/713/transcript.html
http://www.cspgconvention.org/2001abstracts/10-
http://www.nusacc.org/cntryprofiles/ctrprf2001/
Yours Truly.
Conoco Somalia Limited
Off Afgoye Road
P.O. Box 3921
Mogadishu Somalia Democratic Republic
Telephone (252+1) 39135 or 39402
Telex: (999)3706 Conoco Sm
(999)3694 Conoco Sm
Working hard to make life at the pump easier.
Saw the movie last night. Read the book a while back. It's true the movie only skimmed the surface of what was in the book, but how much can you really pack into 2 hrs of film?
I must say the cinemetography for this flick was amazing.
Will definitely have to buy the DVD and check out the tons of footage that was unfortunately left on the cutting room floor.
A non-American report on the incident, from the Economist:
Backed by 17 helicopter gunships, they stormed the building where the Somali leaders were meeting and took 24 prisoners. They planned to drive the three miles back to the US base but could not get out of the area. First one and then another Blackhawk helicopter was shot down. Without a back-up force the convoy ended up going in circles, trapped by hundreds of Somali gunmen firing AK47s and rocket grenades from rooftops or moving with the crowds.
Eventually it had to be rescued by units from Pakistan and Malaysia. But by that time they had been involved in their biggest fire-fight since the Vietnam War and their discipline and organisation had disintegrated.
Bowden describes the convoy trying to escape from the maze of streets in which it was hit by a hail of rockets and bullets at every corner: 'Some of the vehicles were almost out of ammunition. They had expended thousands of rounds. The back ends of the remaining trucks and Humvees in the lost convoy were slick with blood. Chunks of viscera clung to floors and inner walls.
"The second Humvee in line was dragging an axle and was being pushed from behind by the five-ton truck behind it. Another Humvee had three flat tyres and two dozen bullet holes.
"Seal Sgt Howard Wasdin, who had been shot in both legs, had his legs draped up over the dash and stretched out on the hood. Yet another Humvee had a grenade hole in the side and four flat tyres. "They were shooting at everything now. They had abandoned their new mission (to rescue the downed helicopter pilots). Now they were fighting just to stay alive as the convoy wandered into one ambush after another, trying to find its way back to base."
Dale Sizemore, a young Ranger, describes "blasting at everything they saw. Rules of engagement were off." Sizemore saw young boys, seven and eight-year-olds, some with weapons, some without. He shot them all.
In one incident Rangers took a family hostage. When one of the women started screaming at the Americans she was shot dead.
In another incident a Somali prisoner was allegedly shot dead when he refused to stop praying out loud. Another was clubbed into silence. The killer is not identified.
Well it's good to have the agit-prop war movies out before we move on to phase two. That's right, follow the link to remove all doubt.
First, if you actually remember back to 1993, CNN got us into Somalia, not some mythical oil conspiracy or hatred of Moslems. CNN showed starving babies day in and day out until the US people put pressure on President Bush to do something.
He sent in a ton of troops and the food got through. The warlords hid their weapons and laid low. This had the result of putting the civil war on pause while the food was distributed.
After that Bush pulled the main body of troops out. We weren't into peacekeeping. The war began again soon after. The UN troops left to patrol the area were screwed.
Clinton responded with orders to take out the main warlord responsible, but he did not give the forces or equipment required to do the job. Rangers and Delta took the risk instead of screaming to high heaven that they didn't have the troops or equipment.
The result was Blackhawk down. There is no conspiracy, deal with it. It was a combination of political blunders as Administrations changed over and hubrus gone wrong.
I'm into Tom Clancy books and Delta Force computer games, would this movie interest me at all? I'm just kind of wondering because I don't want to go and end up having to sit through some love story, although if that happens I'll just sneak into like FOTR and watch that again.
Visit BobtheKing.com it's perhaps the best thing I've ever made to waste your time with.
But...they're a much more compact country than the U.S. On average they have more people per acre, thus more of a tax base per acre, thus they can afford to build public transport to cover that acreage. The U.S. is so spread out, that level of public transport is going to be prohibitively expensive. So we drive those long distances instead. The reason we use more oil is not that we're "addicts," it's just geography.
We could simply buy our oil. Oil is a commodity, we could buy it from whoever runs the pumps. Doesn't matter, in most cases they can't control who buys it and their economies can't survive without the petrodollars. If the price goes up we actually get motivated to find an alternative.
No, the problem with isolationism is we tried that and wound up getting dragged into WW1. We tried it again and wound up getting dragged into WW2. It turns out to be cheaper and easier to get involved before the shit hits the fan. That may be changing in the era of civil wars and ethnic cleansing though.
Katz obviously didn't watch the end of the movie.
At the end, one of the soldiers (I can't remember his name) says something like: "I'm not going back out there for political reasons or because I feel bad for the people here, I'm going back out there for the guy next me."
So maybe the department should be: dieing-for-the-guy-next-you.
Know an important quote when you hear one.
Killing "women and children" is justified if they are trying to kill you. Self-defense is ALWAYS justified unless you are a criminal involved in criminal activity with criminal intent. Soldiers are carrying out policy, determined by a legitimate government authority, backed by Congress. Totally Constitutional and valid. Thus, soldiers serving lawful orders cannot be criminal. Soldiers defending their lives or the lives of comrades against ANYONE is justified and legal.
Let me guess...you are a soldier in country x on a legitimate, legal mission. A kid comes running up to you with a grenade in his little hand, preparing to toss it at you (likely at the instruction of an adult coward). You ignore the kid and allow him to toss his death-ball at you because, to you, it is stupidly unjustified to defend yourself against a death-dealing child? You moron. It is justified to kill the little shit. He was dead anyway to boot, the grenade was highly likely to cream him as well as you.
This sort of nasty crap occured in Vietnam too and it was always justified in such cases for soldiers to gun the little shit down.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
This had nothing to do with Oil. Either did Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, or Bosnia. We were in all of these places to either Stabalize a government, Help starving and dying people get food, or Establish order and prevent future bloodshed. The only war in recent memory that I can think of that was fought for Oil was Desert Storm. /. bitch about how bad our country is, it is so sad.
If you are going to make a blanket statement about us only fighting for oil, then do your homework first. I see so many people on
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
Deliberately targeting civilians to promote political change.
That is terrorism in a nutshell. Accidentally hitting civilians is legal according to the Laws of War. So attacks on the Pentagon might be an act of war, attacks on the twin towers are terrorism. When the IRA tries to blow up the Prime Minister that is an act of war, when they try to blow up the financial district that is terrorism. When the PLO kills a minister that is an act of war, when they blow up a pizza parlor that is terrorism.
Someone can be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist depending upon their chosen targets.
Attacks against property, etc, should be given another name because they don't promote actual 'terror'.
Acts of War committed by a Non-Governmental group are considered Guerrilla acts under the Rules of War so not having a nation-state behind you does not jump the attack to terrorism, but the targetting of civilians does.
Once I saw Chomsky, I couldn't help but laugh out loud.
If you want to present a balanced researched and analytical viewpoint, this isn't it. Chomsky is the academic equivelant of Big Bird.
Yes that is true and that you don't know that is indicitive of the dumbing down of news and reporting of the only things which help the cause.
The official death toll of 9/11 including the Pentagon is around 3000. The number of deaths in Afghanistan is rapidly approaching 4000.
December 17th, estimates 3200
Jan 3rd, estimates 2998
The number has been revised down every couple of weeks since the attack.
Ratty
0 tens of thousands. Current estimates are around 3000-3500. There was a tremendous amount of double counting, and people being on the list of suspected dead just because their foriegn relatives couldn't get in contact with them and didn't know that working in "New York" is not the same thing as working in the WTC. But how does anyone make sense of such numbers anyway? My hometown in NJ had funerals around the clock. At least in Afghanistan, entire familes died all at once, so they didn't have to go through any of that unpleasantness.
Unless he hits something with his head once too often choking on Pretzels, he'll remain what he is, was and will be - an Oil-Man.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Saw it opening night. I ended up giving it an 8/10 on IMDB.
My feeling about this movie is that it's extraordinarily well-filmed, and a great look at a modern military situation. I have two major complaints about the movie: 1) that they didn't resolve the Durant situation (other than with a line of text at the end of the film) and 2) that I didn't care about any of the characters at all. I thought Saving Private Ryan was a better movie, in that it had the same intensity of action, but also made you empathize with the characters a whole lot more. Still, I'd recommend this to others. Get ready to see a documentary and you'll probably enjoy yourself.
One thing that hit me personally was the birthdate of the guy registering with Ewan MacGregor's character, 2-27-75, which is my birthdate. Then I realized that at the time I was sitting around in high school complaining about my homework and these guys are in Africa getting shot at and shooting "skinnies". Pretty scary.
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
That was the problem. The assault was a complete success. The insertion and execution were planned and executed well. The problem was the extraction. They obviously didn't have a plan for what would happen if a helo got shot down or if the HMMWV's & 5-ton trucks got attacked. If the enemy elements in the area simply had AK-47's, that wouldn't have been a problem. But, as was very clear in the movie, every 5th guy had a damn RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). The commanders simply didn't take that into account or didn't take it very seriously. All it takes is one lucky asshole to ruin your whole day. When the first bird got shot down - that's where it all went to hell! They lost mobility and initiative in a single instant. What did the Army have going for them? The enemy couldn't shoot or coordinate his forces worth a damn. If the helo had never gone down, none of this would have happened. However, when it did go down, suddenly they were teathered to one spot with no support and no extraction. The fact that the enemy could not shoot or coordinate well didn't matter anymore. The Army forces were stuck there long enough that the enemy had ample opportunity to mass his forces and when you have that many bullets flying downrange, well suddenly marksmanship isn't really a factor. On the other hand, if the enemy had coordinated, even a little bit, they could have rushed the building and slaughtered the Rangers.
You saw how when the heavy armor rolled in, the situation was resolved quickly. That was the fatal flaw. The mission was planned well enough on the surface, but didn't have any failsafes planned. Simply put: they didn't expect the unexpected. The principle of overwhelming force is a crucial one in urban operations. The Army sent in what looked like a Delta Force squad with a Ranger infantry company to support them. The Marine Corps would have sent a FAST company or Force Recon platoon in with an entire MEU(SOC) (Marine Expeditionary Unit(Special Operations Capable)) supporting them. That's an infantry battalion, an air squadron, and all their organic support. Not all of them would have been out there, but they would have been instantly avalible for further support. Would the surrounding buildings been a problem after a few low-level bombing runs from F-18's with Harriers supporting them had turned them into a pile of rubble and blood? Hell no. Would the RPG's been a threat to the extraction vehicles if they were M1-A1 tanks instead of HMMVW's and 5-ton's? Hell no. Were American (and for that matter, Somali) lives needlessly lost because some commanders didn't understand the concept of combined arms and an overwhelming show of force? HELL YES.
Semper Fidelis
Geez, anything that is remotely patriotic, or showing US soldiers as INDIVIDUALS that have desirable traits like duty, and brotherhood, and all the left wingers come out to denounce it. Ok, a little more back on topic, I plan to see it tonight, and I hope it is what others have said it was, not much politics, just a good WAR movie. People, if you haven't seen it, then don't go off on it, ok? I am pretty sure Larry Chin never saw the movie, because the trailer probably turned his Clinton-fanboy ass off to already due to the reasons above. I guess he should just stick to the oh so "edgy" crap like "Quills" or something.
Who am I suppose to believe? You, Halberstam, the US military? Whatever handwringin, conspiracies, blah you can think up off, there were hungry people out there, the hungry were fed.
IANAA, but a Malaysian. I cringed everytime I read review saying that BHD was about 18/19 americans who die in a firefight. I wonder how many Somalis died, not to mention the Malaysian soldier who was also killed in the firefight. (Contrary to many reports, the Malaysians soldiers wanted to get into the fight, but the Americans wanted US troops in the Malaysians' APCs. They compromised on Malaysian drivers with American troops.)
But it is easy to criticize from the comforts of the movie theatre. Don't fault the soldiers for doing what they are ordered to do.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
0.35, ie approximately 3500 people. Maybe the *real* number of casualties never made it to the headlines? And the same goes for Afghanistan as well, that's for sure.
The commander should have either refused or changed the plan so that his men and helos were not so exposed. Personally, I would give up my command before I would have executed a plan that fragile. It would suck, but a commander has a moral obligation to the well-being of his men. We stopped believing in "cannon-fodder" after WWI. Unfortunatly, the commander believed that he could either "make it work" or that luck would be on their side...
It might change your mind about the way they think about the innocent Somalians. If you read the book you learn how these folks really "fight": like cowards. They used women and children as human shields. Their tactics were to run out of crowds, rapidly fire off a few unaimed rounds, and then run back in.
There is one instance in the Bowden's book that describes a man lying prone in the middle of the street behind no hard cover. Two women were kneeling, one on either side of him, and children were sitting on top of him. The ranger's response to this was pretty impressive, IMHO... a ranger threw a flashbang grenade (yes, just like half-life) at them and the women and children promptly scattered, leaving the prone man entirely uncovered, an easy target who was quickly killed.
Make no mistake, there were Somalians who fought bravely, but the overall picture is that they fought using the most dispicable tactics available: they tried to take advantage of the fact that the United States holds human life sacred.
All this information I have conveyed is based directly on the book. My knowledge comes entirely from reading Mark Bowden's book and watching the movie. The book is widely acknowledged as the truth and a significant section of the book is even devoted to specifically backing up each claim and source.
Other inaccuracies in the movie inclue:
- The rangers didn't take over the Somalian truck and use it to destroy the other Somalian truck.
- The little bird gun runs were constant throughout the night... this was the ONLY reason the Somalis were kept from overrunning the rangers.
- The night was never quiet.
- more that I don't remember.
Again, all this information is based on my reading of the book. I'd appreciate anyone who can point out any inaccuracies in this statement.
Just got back from the cinema. Enjoyed it immensely. Great entertainment. Anybody who really wants to understand the situation in Somalia, then and now, will fully understand the limitations of the film and its propaganda slant. Anyone who doesn't is too brain-dead for such thing to matter one way or another.
It made me want to own a mini-gun (and have the money to fire it) so much more.
Johnny
You = faggot.
Nuclear power
- is more expensive than renewable sources
- has unknown long-term costs and risks associated with waste disposal
- is incredibly dangerous, in terms of accidents, possible production of weapons-grade material and low-level but widespread health problems around plants - is hated by the majority of the population (for the reasonable reasons above) thus making it a political impossibility
Please leave my world with your shitty death-dealing nukes, worm.
#1-- Too many indistinguishable (and flawless) characters - This movie lacked any kind of single person for us to latch onto. Everyone got equal screentime, more or less, and I had no idea who of the many character's story I was supposed to identify with.
#2-- Media not portrayed at all - For me the most important point of the Somalia story was the famous image of the body being dragged through the streets, which was given short-shrift, and how that image affected our decision to leave. This was a PR war too-- when Bush started the whole thing it was in response to the media's images of starving people (people were accusing Bush of being a racist if he didn't respond, I recall), and when Clinton pulled out, it was in response to the media's depiction of the carnage. I don't recall seeing a single reporter in the movie.
#3-- No examination of the larger picture -- I know someone said this is about the battle, not the larger view, but without compelling characters (and face it, the "I wanna see some action"->"war is hell" transformation is a little uninteresting to anyone who's EVER seen a war movie made after 1980) this movie needs some larger point of view, some justification for its story. Our withdrawal is widely cited as a lesson to the rest of the world (read: Osama Bin Laden) that the US will cave when the going gets too rough. So was our withdrawal from Lebanon after the Beirut bombing. That's potentially interesting and thought-provoking stuff.
#4-- Tom Sizemore -- I mean, he's a fine actor, but he's been in enough war movies don't you think?
This entire thread is filled with text copied and pasted from leftist and pacifist authors and websites. There are no posts in here that provide any kind of orignal thought or statement, just copy-and-paste.
It shows an appaling lack of intelligence to see people reading lies and just beleiving them. Someone says "this movie is US propoganda" and people just beleive them. Try thinking critically for a change.
This movie is based on a book that was written 4 years ago by a journalist, based on his own notes, articles and interviews conducted at he time. Try reading that book, and other sources about the events that occured, and then forming your own opinion. It will serve you much better than coping and pasting text from people who have just as much of agenda to serve as any oil company.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
I think that you need to reread the post because the poster isn't talking about your arguement's and opinion, but your general lack of fortitude in identifying yourself. If you can't handle placing a name to your opinior or your post then you better not try and respond against it. The use of anonymous_coward shows a general lack of laziness or strength in conviction. Oh and you are an idiot.
There was one african-american character on the US side. Due to the fact that he was only in one or two scenes, this film at times seemed like a white vs. black fight, and that bugged me.
You haven't given any specific references, though you have listed works and some criticism by others. And you do point out some practices which while aren't necessarily illegitimate, they may be considered sloppy. I don't remember having read Randy Allen Harris (though I have read many criticisms of Chomsky, so it's possible I may have read one of his articles without remembering his name) so I can't speak to his specific criticisms either.
I will note that having seen Chomsky speak recently, and having read his Nation exchange with Christopher Hitchens over 9/11 and our response has left me feeling as though he is either rushing out work better reserved for a second edit, or possibly his age may be showing through. Without a doubt I believe his earlier political work over the past decades is much better thought through and referenced than what he's been writing over the last few years. Though that is just personal opinion and not factually based.
Thanks for your insightful reply,
--Maynard
Why has Katz suddenly turned to giving us movie reviews? Sure, from the looks of it, this one has generated some heated comments about important subjects, and dialogue is great. But seriously folks, is this the forum for talking movies and their underlying politics? What's /. morphing into?
Why can't it be about both? Why do we have to make every episode of American history have the good vs. evil theme play out like a bad fantasy novel? Are we old enough now to live in a world of mixed motivations?
Here's an alternative to the parant. What if perhaps many people in our government, both civil and military, were moved to action by the atrocities perpetrated by Somali warlord, and simultaneous acted in a way to benefit American interests, both broad and narrow. Some parts of those actions would be self-serving, and some would be noble. And not everyone would agree on which, but at least we'd learn something in depth.
Weren't bin Laden and al-Queda still "good guys" when they trained Adid's men? Remember, that would have been back in 1991-2 or so, if not earlier. Back then, bin Laden was still a "freedom fighter" and a "hero".
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
Leaving aside your ad-hominem attacks, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the quality of your reasoning, you fail to illustrate how exactly you are going to obtain enough hydrogen to run our society.
As for me and my death-dealing nukes, believe me when I say that I'm trying to get off this rock as fast as I can, and I'm going to take as many smart people with me as I can. Rest assured in knowing that you will not make the cut.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Those of us in parts of the world with halfway credible media sources can _work it out_. The following tidbits have popped up on the BBC world service in the past week-
Cheney - President of Haliburton Oil.
Bush Snr - 'Consultant' for the Carlyle Group (Worlds largest defense contractor and largest private equity firm in America)
Bush Jnr - Ex oil, ex carlyle group subsudiary.
(as an aside, the Bin Laden family sold its stake in the carlyle group shortly after 9/11. Dubyas first (profitable!) company directorate was on on the board of a company whos principal stakeholder was Salaam bin Laden, a name that pops up all through his 'career')
Those that you have duly elected stand to profit massively if they can keep oil _supply_ price down, through military means.
Get that? - Bush and cronies are using your _money_ and _lives_ to make themselves very very very very very rich.
e.g.-
American taxpayer aid to the taliban was stopped in (the northern) spring due to an oil pipeline deal that was brokered, in part by Cheney, falling through. As a gesture of goodwill, the Taliban supplied the whereabouts of bin Laden at that time. What went wrong? - the contract was awarded to an Argentinian firm. Can you guess plan b?
I disagree with your saying that the Somalis fight "like cowards." The impression I got from the book was that they were simply using a technique they found effective because Americans tend to avoid shooting women and children. If you'll recall, the book also said that Somalis were not afraid of dying because it is a fast track to heaven and that they thought that the Americans were cowardly because they were afraid to die.
Add up the numbers from your citation. Count of civilians is about 400.
They certainly arent "thousands" of civilian casualties. And certainly, if there were larger civilain casualties from missed strikes, the would have been trumpeted much more loudly than the cited examples.
Therefore you are wrong. There are no "thousands" of civilian casualties.
Try learning some math to go with your obviously biased mental state. Math does lie, although you and your ilk do.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
It's a cultural thing I guess, but most civilized cultures (and even most great ancient ones) consider hiding behind women and children as cowardly.
You could argue that being suicidal in the face of a highly technologically superior opponent could be argued as a brave tactic or not, but women and children shields ?
- sigs are for wimps.
... and you get all your pointless character development, made up characters and ridiculous love story.
This is about real life, and a real event, you don't get to go into long speeches and jokes in the middle of a firefight.
Too much action ? What do you think this movie is about, the local cheerleading team ?
- sigs are for wimps.
Yes, obviously in Somalia, we killed men, women, and children. Chances are very good that they were not "innocent" men, women, and children though. They either had weapons, or were assisting the enemy, and as such they were combatants.
Though the all caps screaming is a bit obnoxious what is written is factually accurate.
I was watching an interesting doco on the history of the British Empire on television a week or two here in Australia. It featured how the high ideals of the British Empire were corrupted by their industrial complex (e.g. East India Company) and how the military supported their goals(e.g. by ousting warlords supporting coups in India). This resulted in wide spread poverty, famine etc. Not to mention of course Slavery from Africa!
Well what did I see but very clearly the same thing here in our day and age!
The US's high ideals of liberty and justice for all being corrupted by oil companies and other US multinationals. Military support of those aims, the symbiosis of military and industry. Oh yeah and slavery due to "globalism" in the sweat shops in the third world.
There's nothing new under the sun, the baton of imperialism is just passed from one super power to another. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Empires rot from the outside in. History repeats.
Roman Empire -> British Empire -> American Empire
ideals -> imperialism -> corruption of industry -> collapse
centurions -> British Navy -> US Air Force
ch0pper.
Fuck off duped republican asshole.
Okay, mod this down as flamebait and Anti-American, but this is my opinion:
Unlike Afghanistan? Yes, 9/11 was a horrible atrocity committed by a bunch of nutjobs who we should go after. However, if you don't think that oil is the primary reason we're meddling in Afghanistan then you've bought the US government propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
US oil companies have been drooling over the prospect of building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan for more than fifteen years and were perfectly happy dealing with the Taliban in an effort to make it happen before 9/11. What we have in Afghanistan now is a puppet government installed by the United States.
I comple0tely and utterly support our troops - the soldiers are doing their duty by going where our government orders them to go and doing what they're ordered to do. They are not to blame. The government of the United States and the US foreign policy are to blame for the antipathy toward the United States. 9/11 was horrible, but it was chickens coming home to roost.
We killed just as many, if not more, innocent civilians in bombing the shit out of Afghanistan. Just listen to Democracy Now and some other NEWS organizations like The Progressive and Mother Jones. CNN has become nothing more than the mouthpiece of corporate America. Have you heard or seen of civilian casualties? When was the last time we had press coverage of a military action like we did during Vietnam?
How many more innocent civilians will the United States kill in vengance for the murders of 9/11? 10,000? 100,000? Millions?
Who will we invade next? Will their prisoners be treated humanely, like the Nazis we tried after WWII? Will the prisoners of the next country we capture be "unlawful combatants" or will they be white and thus qualified for "prisoner of war" status. How many "terrorists" will be captured as the definition is expanded to include anyone who objects to what the US government is doing? Will we too be denied civil liberties without legal representation and kept in prison without trial indefinitely? Will citizens face a military courts martial?
There is no oil in Afghanistan. Somalia? Maybe yes, maybe no. Serbia? Are you nuts?! Vietnam? No oil there. The Arab oil embargo of 1973 caused would prices to skyrocket. South Vietnam had to adjust it's spending to compensate for that since they *IMPORT* their oil. Since the U.S. had already pulled out of South Vietnam, North Vietnam, under Soviet nudging, invaded South Vietnam in 1975. The majority of oil in Vietnam is imported. If it wasn't for the Arab oil embargo of 1973, South Vietnam would've kept up it's defense spending instead of pouring money into paying for oil and there'd still be two Vietnams today. You're either a troll or live in a cave filled with misinformation.
you = "moron";
/. using terms such as the word faggot to prove their point. blah. go away.
cout you;
you simply have to love people who run around
Posting as directed.
Oh all-knowing superman -xnn- whow WILL stop evil Bush and his cronies from taking over whatever is there to be taken over...
You are so pathetic it is not even funny.
Sgt. Eversmann (Josh Hartnett) never was at the first crash site overnight. He went back with the convoy and then went out with the rescue convoys later that day/night.
There wasn't a Somali friendly-fire incident involving a son accidentally shooting his father.
There wasn't friendly fire between Rangers on the streets during the day. There were friendly fire incidents went Rangers were shooting into the second floor windows of buildings. The same building Delta Force guys were clearing out.
Rangers Lead the Way!
Hrm. Think about it a little deeper. When I say "Afghanistan", you think "general area around Afghanistan and Pakistan. Think the sea is right there. Iran just to the west, India just to the east, China just to the northeast, and Russia to the northwest. Think, Black Sea, Caspain Sea, Think Lots-of-Oil. Lots-of-Lots." How would you move that Oil from the Caspian and Black seas without going near Russia, Iran, the middle east in general, or China? Oh, right through Afghanistan, which has been controlled by the US through Pakistan for the past 20 years. How convenient.
First off, it's "Somali" not "Somalian".
I spent 1984 and 1985 in Somalia as part of "Operation Peace Horn". Among other elements, that mission brought in Ground-based tactical radar systems (US AN-TPS43-E's built by Westinghouse [now Northrop Grumman]). I was a radar jock assigned to train Somali officers. I was stationed in Galcaio. Galcaio is not the end of the world, but you can see it from there.
On the "Italian Road" that connects Mogadishu with Belet Weyne is a little town called Garoe (pronounced ga-ROY). Along side the road in Garoe is something the Somali call a "Government House". These are like our jail/courtroom/local-government centers.
A large painting on the side of the building depicted a Somali soldier kicking the butt (literally) of a Russian soldier. (The US had been in Ethiopia while the Russians were in Somalia. When Haile Selassie died, Ethiopia went Communist, the situation flipped - Russia went to Ethiopia and the US went into Somalia.)
I was in a Land Rover escorted by a Somali Army Major and on the way to Galcaio for the first time - I laughed at the painting on the Garoe Government House as we went by it.
The major turned to me, and in a dead-serious voice said, "If you treat us like they did, we'll do the same to you." We did treat them as badly as the Russians, and sure enough we were out.
"Mission Creep" is what got our men killed - that and hubris.
My year in Somalia was quite an experience. I found the Somali to be incredibly kind and gentle people - until someone pissed them off.
I knew Omar Jess when he was in charge of Dusa Mareb (between Belet Weyne and Galcaio). Then Major Jess was in charge of keeping the Ethiopians off the Somali border in that area. Major Jess has no love for Ethiopians - captured Ethiopian soldiers were routinely disembowled alive as protection against their ghosts returning to haunt the Somali. Major Jess was an articulate, educated man, but absolutely brutal to the enemies of his people.
I was saddened, but not surprised, to see that video of one of our dead troops dragged through the street in Mogadishu. I had seen worse in Dusa Mareb. I never forgot my escort's words as we drove through Garoe - and as soon as I heard the UN was asking us to go from humanitarian aid to hunting down the "warlords", including then Colonel Omar Jess, I knew what would happen. It did.
The Somali have occupied their land for perhaps a thousand years or more. To a man, woman, and child (most Army regular troops were under the age of 14) they will fight to keep their land and people safe from any perceived danger. It really doesn't matter who - the US, the Russians - it makes no difference.
Looking at that clinically and substituting the name of any country (including the US) for the name Somalia, I do not blame them one damned bit.
Peace,
Hagbard
Although I haven't read the book (I intend to), most directors trim a book down to the parts that would (in their mind) make a good movie. For example, it is hard to film what somebody is thinking. There are film devices that can pull it off but they don't always work. To film all the scene in most books would lead to movies of trememdous length. Very few people would be willing to sit through these. Of most interest to a US audience would normally be the US soldiers.
In that viewpoint, the movie worked in my opinion. Whether or not the US should be there is immaterial for the most part of the movie. The movie shows the courage, and camraderie of the US soldiers. It does not pretend to judge either side, it just shows what happens.
Of course, I would have trouble sitting through a six or eight hour movie, no matter how good it is!
I have also read the book. It was such incredible reading that I couldn't put it down. And I agree that there were some inaccuracies.
One thing that I would disagree with you on is the "cowardly" method of fighting that you talked about. I remember that scene in the book also. Now, I ask you, what is more cowardly: shooting from behind a human shield or firing missiles from hundreds of miles away and destroying anything in site including innocent men, women, and children? A war is not a game. People fight to win. People fight for life and death. When you fight, you use your enemies weakness against them. US uses technology over the opponents, and the Somalis happend to use human shields.
Now, I'm not defending one side or the other. But the main thing I got out of the book is that it was the fault of the people at the top that they got stuck in this situation. Prior to this incident, another Blackhawk was shot down. [BTW: the picture that we all saw from the papers of the pilot being dragged through the street was this incident] In addition, the "somalis" were not necessarily from somalia. There were evidence coming out recently that Osama bin Ladin had sent fighters to Somalia to combat the US.
Lastly, there was one thing in the movie that I don't think actually happend. Near the end of the movie where the warlords were firing a huge cannon on the people bunkered down in the building. And these two delta force snuck up on them and strangled them to death using piano wire and then use the cannon on the other warlords. Tell me if I had missed something in the book.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Actually no, contrary to the general bullshit Comsky does not always advance the idea that America is the centre of all the world's pain and that it is all 'our' fault. What he does point out is that American businesses and the politicians that they control have and still do make many destructive decisions. We the people are not always told the truth about these decisions. Nevertheless when the price is paid, we as soldiers, taxpayers and civillians pay it.
Chomsky is also clear that this is not new nor is it specific to the U.S. He has lambasted Britan, China and the USSR at the same time.
"Anonymous Coward". It's apparent that you're a total pussy, and that you do your country disservice by making such remarks with the name Coward right under them. You seem to be into generalization, so I guess we'll put you all in the same boat too "Coward". Just don't go putting bombs in your shoes and trying to get on a plane. You may not be the same nationality as that dumbass, but you sure seem the same type. You're too scared to post on Slashdot with your real name, then talking about soldiers killing people in self defense. You seem like the type that would shoot your own mother to save your own neck. Shut the fuck up. I'll get modded down, but this is worth it, you pathetic smegma ball.
true, there is no oil in Afghanistan to speak of (though there is some gas) - but oil and gas are a crucially important part of the current unpleasantness there.
why? simple. there are very large oil and gas reserves in Turkmenistan (and surrounding nations), directly to the north of Afghanistan, and for years American oil companies have been maneouvring to have a pipeline built from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, south to Pakistan and thence to the giant markets in North America, Europe, etc.
by "very large", read oil deposits similar to those of Saudi Arabia, and the largest gas reserves in the world.
when the stakes are this high, a lot of the strange stuff going on in this region recently starts to make sense...
Pipeline Politics: Oil, gas and the US interest in Afghanistan
Oil and Gas International editorial
Control of Central Asia's oil is the real goal
The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns
mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.
US flies in, murders innocent women and children, lucky shot takes copter down, US murders hundreds more civilians, dead US soldier on TV -->> Hooollywooood!!!
Yippe!! Another war movie about America the Great kicking some small, under developed, contry's ass. It's funny seeing how such a powerfull and mighty country needs such propaganda to justify it's greed and lust for power and domination of all. The sad comment made by the author of the critique of this film that the action of the U.S. against Afganistan that I feel is in part from believing the lie machine the is the U.S. gov't.
Doesn't anyone else get it? Bush and his cronies pulled off the 9/11 crap. War is good for business. America will do anything for good business, well at least those who would stand to benifit from this. What benifit, you ask, well how about those who were ready for the stock crash and made a killing there. What about the oil in Afganistan? America loooooves oil. It's so hard these day to excite blood lust from a passive society, you got to give them a reason to kill. Not just your enemy, but anyone who come close to resembling the enemy. Sure bomb a poor struggling country that holding 1 person, because he caused 6000 people to die. What kind of logic is that? That's not logic, that's just emotion. Whoa, that emotion let "our" politions make laws and rules that allow them more control of our lives. I'm tired of being ruled by the maffia that most people are fool enough to think as our government.
There was a good discussion, replete with examples, about Chomsky putting ideology ahead of fact on a smaller (but very good) weblog called kuro5hin.org. Here's the link:
3
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/19/204933/3
For best results, sort by score.
This post and the throttling the original poster gives to his challenger really undermined my trust in Chomsky's authority.
sig semper tyrannis!
Well, after reading your comment and the others on this movie, I can only say one thing: there are some really, REALLY deep divisions in the United States. It's like an even split (as exemplified by your last election) between deeply liberal and deeply conservative, not to mention black and white. I guess it's healthy for the world's superpower to have dissenting voices and healthy debate, but both sides seem so entrenched (at least to non-Americans like me) and so full of rhetoric it's hard to imagine any common ground being reached.
When I go to the U.S., I'm struck by the obvious heterogeneity of the place: living standards, beliefs, political views. It's so different from Europe, even Canada, where the political and social landscapes have far fewer sharp divisions. Sure, it leads to a lot of healthy debate, but it also leads to a lot of unhappy citizens when the "other side" comes into power. Nothing makes that more clear than discussing U.S. foreign policy, as represented by films such as "Black Hawk Down": in it, people see moral good, moral evil, black vs. white, empire building, humanitarian compassion, and more.
That's why he supported Pol Pot back in the 70's and was a hardcore Maoist, supported Stalin until the "New Left" fad in the 60's, and still supports Fidel Castro. Because he believes in democracy. I'm going to pass out laughing.
Tollerance does not end with "...as long as I agree with you"
The good ole Filthy Critic's reviews always seems to be right on the money - his current review of Blackhawk Down kept me laughing....
- jonathan.
I'm not so sure that oil was a direct reason behind why the United States got involved in Somalia.
.a couple of easy reads would be "Black Hawk Down" and "War in the Time of Peace", neither books are scholarly, but they are easy enough to read.
Though US troops (in the form of SEALS) were the first to land in Mogadishu, the US was actually part of a larger UN mission to try to bring peace and order to a country that was falling apart. The mission itself was therefore pretty openended and was supportedly half heartedly by the administration of Bill Clinton which was concentrating on domestic issues and also because the US involvement in Somalia was one of the final acts by the outgoing POTUS George Bush.
Failure (the US and all UN troops eventually withdrew from Somalia without accomplishing any of their goals) in Somalia, could be a reason behind the indecisiveness that the US showed in getting involved in other conflicts around Africa and also in the Balkans.
There are two interesting connections between the current US involvement in Afghanistan and Somalia. 1. The militia in Somalia that succeeded in shooting down the BlackHawks were supposedly trained by Osama Bin Ladin. 2. The US is again involved in a UN mission of nation building in a lawless country divided by warlords.
The US obviously did not get involved in Afghanistan because of Oil, but it could be one of the prizes for the involvement. Afghanistan can now be a viable option for a pipeline to bring oil from the Central Asian formere Soviet Republics out to the Indian Sea. Somalia, was not for oil, but was a mission without any direction that was supposed to bring order to a country that was not ready or willing to have any.
But, don't take my word for it. .
"And Slawomir Idzik's lighting was great at times, but he also shot African faces as if they were Orcs from Lord of the Rings, bringing out extreme blackness as if it were an indication of evil."
Have you ever seen regular pictures and photos of the natives of the area? They really are that dark. It wasn't a portrayal of evil. It was showing them factually. They tend to be that dark because of the omnipresent sun.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
America has enough problems internally, that we do not need to act as the world's big brother, protecting it from itself. More importantly, the role (as defined by the constitution and the evidence of the reasoning of the founding fathers) of the US Military is to defend us, not the world. Plus, defence is defined more along the lines of a police force that protects its citizens as much as possible from criminals, and then if a criminal act is performed, seeks to hunt down and apprehend the criminal. With the current set of US foreign policy, it is more akin to cops that invade your home based on scanning of your eating, purchasing and talking habits, puts you away with violence in a 'proactive' method to prevent the crime from ever taking place.
The difference between a bleeding heart liberal and a rational caring person (there are billions, but this is in the particular context of this subject) is primarily that the rational caring individual (key word is individual) does what is best based on his ability to perform the activity to help, while the liberal joyfully sends others to do the dirty work, then bitches when it is done (and fabricates reality with selective facts, lies and willful ignorance or the truth). The end result is cunning by some, but not logical. The liberal not only can feel mighty from his/her exerted force on the soveriegnty of others, but ends up killing off (getting rid of) those he/she despises the most (the military).
William Jefferson Clinton "loathe[s] the military" yet commited the US military to more foreign actions than ANY president of the 20th century. This of course groups the World Wars into major theaters of operation.
I for one have yet to see ANY enlightenment from the liberals. (and no, I am not a conservative, there are more dimensions to life than a linear scale) They have historically been the driving force behind the worlds greatest attrocities, whether directly (the actual implementers) or by support (being emotional knee jerk reactionary sheep who refuse to apply critical thought) **critical thought is NOT simply big words, quotes or parroting the rhetoric of some self serving and unstable hate mongering socialist professor/mentor.
As soon as humanity figures out that there are no answers to life because it ALWAYS changes, but rather there are correct directions... then we will have achieved the first step to enlightenment, because my dear friends, the direction ALWAYS passes first through US, then on to the universe. Police yourself before your rage and angst is released upon the unsuspecting populace you 'claim' to champion.
The movie was started long before Sep. 11th, but it's release date was brought forward and the final cutting of the film was rushed in order to release the film in the current climate.
The Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) provides college scholarship grants, based on need, along with financial aid and educational counseling to the children surviving Special Operations personnel killed in the line of duty.
Give a few bucks if you can, it really goes to the kids.
http://www.specialops.org/
The events which took place in Somolia were very serious, and everyone should learn about what happened. The acts of heroism, sacrifice, and bravery should not go unnoticed. That being said, this movie consisted mainly of violent war scenes, depressing casualties and deaths of unknown and undeveloped characters, and spots of misplaced and innapropriate humor. When the chacters did engage in dialog, the acting was very good. However very few of the characters are distinguishable amidst the violence and constant "duck and cover" action of the soldiers. The political situation is hardly mentioned. In the end, the UN and Pakistan (which weren't even told of the raid beforehand) come to the rescue to save America's troops, and ultimately it is America that seems to take the glory in the movie. This is why other countries don't like America. Don't see this movie, read a history book instead. Honor and remember those who died by donating your money to an appropriate cause instead of a Hollywood production studio.
Katz sucks my fucking ass. Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please stop letting this cretin ruin our beloved slashdot with half baked opinions that he has so obviously pulled from his ass.
Rather than typecasting me as a 'rationalist' while spouting imperialist propaganda
... Many UNOSOM soldiers have also displayed unacceptable levels of racism toward Somalis ..." These abuses included opening fire with machine guns against unarmed protesters, firing missiles into residential areas and outright murder civilians, including many youth. The report states "UNOSOM has become an army of occupation."
have a read of this. I have no idea what you
mean by that but if you mean most slashdoters
will sit on their lardarse watching the US
carry world to hell in a handbasket I think
you are mistaken.
Just the facts jack. You come back with like.
"On December 12, 1992, the U.S. sent 28,000 soldiers into Somalia under the cover of the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) in what they said was a "humanitarian mission" to bring food to starving people. The invasion came when a several-year drought that had taken tens of thousands of lives was actually abating. At the time, the evening news showed images of thousands of starving Somalis. What people didn't see was U.S. troops - not delivering food - but instead engaged in daily gun battles and bombing raids in heavily populated neighborhoods. In ten months, more than 10,000 Somalis died as the U.S. engaged in aggressive military action against those who resisted.
Resistance among Somali women, men and even children to the foreign troops became widespread. The Somali people have a long and proud history of resistance. They fought for the freedom of their country from Italian, French and British colonialism - and they resisted the U.S. attempts to recolonize their country.
In the beginning of the military intervention in 1992, Colin Powell, at the time the chairman of the Pentagon's Join Chiefs of Staff, called the invasion a "paid political advertisement" for the Pentagon at a time (less than a year after the end of the so-called Cold War) when Congress was under growing pressure to cut the war budget. Powell opposed calls that that money be used instead for jobs, education, health care, housing and other social needs, and instead sought to maintain the $300-billion-plus military budget.
In reporting on the U.S./UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM), the human rights organization Africa Rights stated that troops "have engaged in abuses of human rights, including killing of civilians, physical abuse, theft
B.H.D is a political movie about what happens when dumbass politicians and an ignorant citizenry send people off to die for no good reason anybody can think of (unlike Afghanistan).
Actually, that does sound like Afghanistan.
I would say that at least as many innocent Afghan people died as died in 9/11.
Anyone who has any legitimate opinion other than mine I like to hear.
Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
While I'm not endorsing Chomsky, you are just wrong here. The history of Vietnam goes back further than North and South. Basically, "South Vietnam" was not a legitimate state. It was an extension of the colonial rule of the French, and the division of Vietnam was supposed to be a temporary measure (it was to be unified in a general election) IOW, the very existence of "South Vietnam" was a provocation.
Oddly enough, as soon as Bush boosted this fuel cell research program, certain so-called environmentalists began criticising him. Even some folks I know criticized him, for not working harder to make oil more efficient. What a twisted form of logic they must use!
That is bullshit. If Bush's main goal were to (further) enrich himself, there are much better ways to go about it.
This war has driven oil prices down in the US... in case you didn't know, that causes Texas oil producers to make less money, not more!
I think the important distinction is whether the women and children are willing participants (I don't know). If someone wants to use themselves as a human shield, then that is their right, although any sympathy for they should be taken with a grain of salt in that case, since their entire goal is to screw with your emotions... IMHO, a willing human sheild should be treated as a combatant. (easy for me to say, I'm not the one that has to deal with the guilt trip, I know)
OTOH, if they are being forced to protect combatants with their bodies, then it most certainly is cowardace, even murderous. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say any "culture" that thinks it's OK to use another human being as a piece of emotionally charged peice of armor is cowardly and evil.
BTW, it's pretty obvious they're afraid to die, too, or they wouldn't be interested in human sheilds in the first place...
--
Benjamin Coates
A good site for "techie" moral fence sitters.
"Our" is a word that spills blood.
Bravery is just a word without politics by other means.
Was it Aspin or Clinton. I know Aspin was one of Macnamara's boys so it wouldn't be too suprising if he had made the decision. But Clinton had a talent for pinning the blame on the dead guy (see google:McDougal,Jim and Foster,Vince [???dare I include Koresh,David????]
Perception is a tricky thing. As a result you shouldn't believe *anything* you read from *any* news agency.
.45 and shot another man at point blank range who had just pulled his car into an apartment parking lot.
I was 10 meters from a shooting in my home town, where a man stopped his car in the road, pulled out a
The press got everything from the number of people involved to the condition of the victim (he survived, a very lucky guy) wrong. They even reported that the victim was "on a leisurely stroll" when he was shot. I was the one on the stroll, I even helped him stop the bleeding, while he smoked a cigarette. Pretty strange experience.
It's all a lie. Don't let it get you worked up. Don't believe the US, UK or anyone, and you might keep your sanity after all.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
The Ranger Motto is Sua Sponte (of their of accord).
I'm too drunk and pissed to continue, but until you've put yourself in harms way for no good reason Katz, just shut your god damn mouth.
Now, IIRC, this is a misinterpretation. Bowden's book listed 500 fatalities among over a thousand casualties. Now, I'm not an expert in the field, but this would seem to indicate 500 killed among a thousand wounded. Casualty!=fatality.
I've traveled so far. So how come this wheely thing I'm in hasn't gone anywhere?
what stands out are his highly rational arguments, as well as his meticulous documentation
Clearly you ought to read more of Chomsky's serious critics. Granted, they can be hard to find since mainstream thinkers dismiss him and his fans out of hand.
This piece by Hitchens points out many gross errors in Chomsky's most ridiculous recent assertion --- that the Sept. 11 attacks considered as an atrocity do not "reach the level" of Clinton's bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. (To me the most astounding thing was that Chomsky said this back when it was believed that over 10,000 people were murdered in the Sept 11 attacks!)
This is not to defend Clinton's bombing of the Sudan, but to show Chomsky's ultimate lack of credibility.
One of Chomsky's factual errors is to assert that the US blocked inquiries into the number of people dying from lack of drugs in the Sudan. This is easily verified as false. What the US blocked was an inquiry into what the factory produced.
One clear error in Chomsky's reasoning is his accounting of how death and suffering is to be compared. In the case of the Sudan, Chomsky counts indirect deaths caused by lack of medicine (he calls them direct). But with the destruction of the WTC he does not consider the staggering blow it has had on the world economy. Markets are held back. Foreign investments are curtailed. With decreased tax revenue in Europe, Japan, and the US, governments are forced to cut back on new programs to help the developing world.
Just where does he think $100M pharamaceutical factories come from? For that matter, how is it that new medicines are developed in the first place? The actual attack, as well as the fear of more attacks, has set back the entire world. It is in the developing world that people will suffer most of the continuing indirect effects of the Sept. 11 attacks. But although Chomsky finds these effects vitally important in the toll of the Sudanese bombing, but does not begin to consider them for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Worst of all, Chomsky wrote a reply which turns out to be more ad hominem than anything else. Chomsky does not respond to factual errors that Hitchens pointed out. Chomsky says he need not discuss the question of "Can the attacks of September 11 be compared to an earlier outrage committed by Americans?". But Chomsky did in fact compare the two events. (In his published note "On the Bombings".) Hitchens' question is legitimate and must be answered in any valid defense of Chomsky's statements on the Sept 11 attacks. In spite of earlier interest in the topic, Chomsky now declares the conversation ended, the question irrelevant and, in my view, forfeits both his position and his credibility as a serious, reasonable thinker.
It doesn't seem right that only 19 US marines died, given the huge swarms of "armed to the teeth and everywhere" civilians depicted in the film. Especially what with their RPG's and even artillery.
I suspect the size and weapons capabilities of the opposing force was greatly exaggerated.
The BBC, isn't that in Britian? Didn't britian try to take over afganistan and lose? Russia + 10 years and they lost, US and some towel heads from the north and it only took a few months. I say we go after britian next, or maybe they will try to ignite c4 with a match and blow up our planes(matches can't ignite c4).
You are right about our friends in the Whitehouse having an interest due to oil companies in the Afghanistani pipeline that they were planning on making, but there is one big gaping whole in your theories that other people have not noticed... enourmous, drive-a-truck-through-it hole.
American taxpayer aid to the taliban was stopped in (the northern) spring due to an oil pipeline deal that was brokered, in part by Cheney, falling through. As a gesture of goodwill, the Taliban supplied the whereabouts of bin Laden at that time. What went wrong? - the contract was awarded to an Argentinian firm. Can you guess plan b?
Here you are saying, in effect we planned a war with the Taliban and the Al Quaeda... your "plan B" smacks of intentional overt warfare... then why were we brokering with a group of people who for more than five years were planning an attack on our two largest massed structures to kill thousands that WE KNEW ABOUT AND STOPPED SEVERAL TIMES? You never, ever come willingly to a bargaining table whilst someone has a pistol drawn underneath it. NO ONE IS THAT STUPID, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT MAKE PRESIDENTS. We learned our lesson years ago when certain South American countries nationalized our oil interests.
We never planned on attacking them for God's sake, if an Argentenian company bought them then it would be a surefire indication that it was always up for sale, we just happened to be buying... and lost for some other reason, probably not the money.
Oh, and here's another one. The reason why these countries that you say are broken is not our fault. I would like to advance the radical notion that why those people are screwed so badly is because of the nature of their mentally poor, ridiculously weak citizenry and butcher leaders OVER HUNDREDS OF GENERATIONS... not because of the last 15 minutes that a CIA operative has been in country. These people never got the bug that says, "Liberty!" Never fought for their individual independence. Never even fought for religious independence from their leaders like Martin Luther did. Name one. I dare you. Name one that was a warrior for the people and not to make his own kingdom. I KNOW YOU CAN'T. There aren't any. Not one that any Westerners can look to and say, "Now there was a man out for the advancement of his people, and not just himself." NAME ONE LEADER IN THE MIDDLE EAST THAT IS NOT A COMPLETE, MURDEROUS NUTBAG. That place was a den of vipers long before the the US was a country. I have no idea why the Jews wanted back there, but then again, I am not a Jew, so I don't even try to understand.
You really can't blame the CIA on every countries woes. Its a cop out, and a horrible slap against the United States and all of the other democracies in the free world that had citizens with enough guts to take back their land from tyrannous bastards. If they take it back for the people, then we'll know that they're serious about being something other than pathetic, loser, dirt farmers and poppy-field pushers. Guess what? It ain't going to happen.
I am sure there is a lot of blame coming our way on all of this current mess. But honestly, if you want to BLAME IT ALL on something else and absolve the individuals in question of all responsibility for their actions, then may I suggest a long and fruitful career in social work. Those losers could abuse a doe-eyed crusader like yourself for a while and let you give them things they never earned.
I have similar complaints regarding Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is an interesting book but I cannot regard it as any great work of scholarship. He has a Bibliography in the back, but does not use references as I would like. He excuses himself saying (in the Bib.) "To indicate every source of information in the text would have meant a book impossibly cluttered with footnotes."
I could not disagree with him more. Also, you don't even need to use footnotes to properly indicate references. You can use endnotes between chapters or in a References section in back. It would have been helpful even if he'd indicated page numbers or even just chapters of the books in the bibliography. In my opinion, the bare minimum he could have done would be to properly reference quotations. Instead they are attributed passim, and one must search through an entire book, or even dozens of books to find if he is representing it properly.
As an experiment I looked up his very first quotation, from Columbus's log, since it was easy enough to locate. One section of it in Zinn's book (verbatim) is "Their spears are made of cane. . . . They would make fine servants. . . . With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." This makes Columbus appear to a determined slaver from the start.
But if you look at an actual text of Columbus's log, the words are all there, but Zinn's ellipses turn out to be huge. The small part I have quoted extends is apparently from log entries starting at Oct 11., and ending Oct 14. Intellectual honesty requires that you separate these off as separate quotations. Zinn misrepresents what Columbus actually wrote. I assume Zinn gathered these tidbits deliberately in order to form an apparent chain of reasoning which is not actually displayed in the log. I'm not a big fan of Columbus, but surely it is not necessary to misrepresent his writings. Zinn should have stuck to summarizing the actions of Columbus, and using coherent quotations.
Also, the parts of that specific quotation do not look half as sinister when viewing in their actual textual context. The part about servants is brought up by the natives' accounts of slavery amoung the island populations. Columbus actually brings up the part about conquering them with fifty men not as any part of a proposed project, but to say that there is no point in building a fort.
There are already enough bad things Columbus did and said without fabricating new ones.
His assessment was that the story was about as accurate as Hollywood is with other such historic subject matter. Many of the timelines and events were either compressed, attributed to a single character, or abbreviated. Such is to be expected when you reduce 2 months of bad planning and a 15 hour fire-fight into 2.5 hours.
While he was very complimentary of the technical accuracy, the portrayal of Ranger moxy and the fast-paced action, he did wish the film would have hammered a bit more at the mismanagement that created cluster-*uck e.g. Les Aspin turning down requests to send in armor & air support because of "how it would look" (see links below).
pbs:frontline
boston herald
... provided we can get tickets!
... that make for some informative reading for potential movie-goers.
That said, he's all for seeing it again as a bunch of us do a men's night this week
BTW, here's a review I read on Epinions that includes some quotes and some of the order of battle from the book, Black Hawk Down
epinions:black hawk down
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
As a matter of fact the US is spending millions of dollars and quickly depleting our surprisingly small stores of smart weapons in an effort to not kill civilians. This depletes our capabilities to fight a full scale war. This monetary cost isn't comparable to lost lives, but you can't compare the deliberate targeting of tens of thousands of civilians to the US efforts.
Damnit I AM acting my age. I'm 15 in hex!
at the time of the war in somalia, there was a specific goal and reason for the troop deployment there, though the actual reasons Washington had may differ from what they offered through the media. What makes anyone think that the Afganistan conflict is any different? Though more Americans can relate through patriotism, it will be years before the American public can make a rational decision whether the military presence there is justified or reasonable. It is sad that there is no foresight in the reviewer's story that the lives lost there might be just political puppets for a government looking to win support for electorals.
1.
The one lefty-type feeling I had after watching the movie was that disarmification is a must. Okay so people starve and people kill each other but it is pretty unconscionable that we have allowed the means for people to kill each other to proliferate to such a degree. Before there can be any "nation building," we've got to invest in zones cleared of weapons.
2.
Katz really missed out on his typical angle on things in that Black Hawk Down (the series, book and movie) is a remarkable document, and a document that might not have existed so completely if it were not for philly.com's website and messageboard. During and after the posting of each chapter in the series more and more people came out of the woodwork and added to Bowden's understanding of what happened. This wouldn't have happened as completely as it did without the everyday pervasive nature of contemporary information technologies.
The UN was not in Somalia to be in a war, it was a humanitarian operation. When did anyone use a cruise missile on Somalia? AFAIK the US has (believe it or not) mostly used them only in clearly warlike situations such as in Yugoslavia. Of course the big exception was the ill-conceived attack on the factory in Sudan. Even there the attack was made at night to minimize loss of life. One person was killed in the factory, which is much less than you would expect. But if the US were using cruise missiles in Somalia, surely they would not have been making so many raids using Rangers, Delta Force, etc. They knew the guys were in that particular building, but they absolutely did not blow it up, either with a missile or a bomb. The truth is the operation was intended to kill as few people as possible. Unfortunately it did not work out that way. But I am amazed anyone would say the US had bad intentions in this instance.
Bottom line: If the Marines were able to do the job, they would have been there.
Wow, the Somalis were afraid of American armor?!? Well, which ragtag 3rd World militia isn't afraid of American armor? Hell, even the Iraqi soldiers in the Soviet built T-72s ran from the M1-Abrams in Desert Storm.
Don't be so boastful of your M.A.R.I.N.E. Corps. Here is a FACT - Medals of Honor Awarded to the Army: 2350 and the Marines: 296. No, that is not a typo. Last two MOH were awared to Army Sergeants Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart for volunteering to be inserted at the second Blackhawk crash site and saving pilot Michael Durant's life.
Nice job in letting Mohammed Aidid's son join the Marine Corp. Really smooth to send him to Somalia too! Ya think there would be a conflict of interest?!?
Was Operation Restore Hope a disaster? Yes, it would have been that way with the Army, Marines or the Boy Scouts.
M.A.R.I.N.E = My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment
Your argument is incoherent. The UN did pull out of Somalia. Isn't that what you are complaining that they should do? Also, the UK did participate in the US Civil War. Back then the UN did not exist, and Russia did not have much of a navy.
Idiot. Ya know, this isn't exactly news ;P
Let me tell you something,
I'm really gettin quite tired of the human rights bullshit lately. Frankly, if some bastard is throwing rocks and grenades at me, while shooting rounds off and firing missiles at me...I'm gonna blast that fool. And you better hope your ass isn't between you and them, because you'll be a casualty too.
This point of view may seem sickening to many, and many people may feel that it's wrong to "abandon human rights", but I look at it in a much different perspective. Many countries around the world do NOT believe in such a thing. Many countries do NOT believe in equality of races, religions, or sexes. Morover, many countries in the world do NOT allow such liberal behavior as we are partaking in right now. In many countries, you are NOT allowed to voice your opinion if it differs from your government's. We here in the states are fortunate. Hell, we even have a clause in our Ammendments that states we are allowed to overthrow our government with a well-formed malitia if we feel it is not representing our best interests. Any readers from any other country have that clause? Can the british readers oust the Royal Family if they feel they don't represent the general public? I think not.
Anyway, I feel that people (both pro and anti USA) are allowed to voice their opinions. Topics are open to debate here in the US. And no matter how pissed it may make us to hear, read, and see people insulting and assaulting all that we stand for, I know that in the end, we will prevail. We're always there to lend a helping hand when countries need it, and we never ask for a dime back (hell, just look at the back-stabbing French...they've screwed everyone...including the USA).
sure that you are a fool. Look to the history of Iran, for example. Regarded in the 1950s as an enlightened, prosperous country which had the misfortune to ELECT a president that nationalised their oil industry taking control from the American companies that were taking the oil and paying no tax or reparations for doing so apart from a one time 'prospecting license'. Cue the US funded overthrow of the govenment and the installation of a US friendly Shah who brutally repressed the freedoms you seem to hold so dear, growing fat and wealthy while the standard of living for the iranian on the street plummeted. leading to a popular but tragic overthrow of the regime by a clerical theocracy and ... do you even know the rest of the story? The old US embassy in Tehran is now the 'Museum of Arrogance'. Which is what Americans _are_. The list of crimes committed so you can fill your Lincon Towncar up at the pump for less than the car cost is immeasurable.
Self rightiousness is easy when you are _right_.
Can you name one democratic regime that was put in place in any of the countries 15 that the US has attacked directly in the past 30 years?
Ignorance is bliss, until somebody flies a jetplane into your pretty little towers.....
I think this covers it:
r ee d.htm
http://www.ohiovet.com/lazydog/bucyrus/ranger/c
Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession. I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of the Rangers.
Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air. I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier.
Never shall I fail my comrades I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong, and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the tasks whatever it may be one hundred percent and then
some.
Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.
Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word, I will never leave fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.
Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.
"Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending."
Everyone knows the ending.............
If half of the things you have to say about the current state of American society were true, you would have been shot long before you got the chance to write this. I mean, really... Your continued existance on this planet invalidates most of what you had to say.
Let me tell you something. You are a moron.
But in cinematography, it's possible to underlight and underexpose to let black faces fall out of detail so that their features become unresolvable. Check out the first shots when the captured aide sits across from the general in the bunker. He's a dark skinned man, but he's photographed as if he's an oil slick. Not so for our fearless white heroes under the sun. The legendary Conrad Hall (who lit American Beauty) even discussed this problem openly in notes he wrote on cinematography in the 60s, by showing how the cinematographer and the makeup artist should take care to present black skin as it truly is.
There is a great history of how traditional Hollywood lighting was discriminatory against black skin in order to make people look caricatured so that they were jet black; take a look at pickaninnies or performers in blackface in old school vaudeville films. Black skin back then had no shades - only the darkest of the dark, and if you do even more historical research you'll find that caricaturized illustration and propaganda pamphlets from the time and around the time of slavery liked to do the same thing. Equations in language and literature likened the darker the skin to the weaker and more savage the character. Take a look at Lord of the Rings; where every human supporter of Sauron is decked out in black, dark skinned, swarthy, brown skinned, hailing from deserts in the south, and barbaric with guttural language. It's the same old same old.
You'll dismiss this as lunacy, but those are actual fact. Talk all you want, but all one has to do is watch movies from the 30s and 40s and note the respect given to black actors back then. Apparently it lives on. I'm sure you can see that Blackhawk Down isn't racist - but what I'm saying is that it isn't the content - those were the skin colors of the real people involved. It's the context and the presentation, which to me makes Africans look like simple minded barabarians who act depraved rather than human beings, some good, some bad - as history tells us were present that day.
In the words of Gen. George Patton: You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win by making the other poor bastard die for his.
Make no mistake, there were Somalians who fought bravely, but the overall picture is that they fought using the most dispicable tactics available: they tried to take advantage of the fact that the United States holds human life sacred.
Which is why so many civilians were slaughtered by the US, right?
The Strange World of Noam Chomsky
1) My comments was not in regards to specifically Somalia, but US military as a whole. Look at Afghanistan. Military researchers and analysts have found that by sending in ground troops in full force, they have a better chance a succeeding in their mission with less innocent casualties. However, instead, they decide to pretty much carpet bomb Afghanistan, destroying Red Cross Building and innocent civilians and villages. In addition, instead of using the Delta force or the elite US soldiers, they are hiring Afghans to fight a proxy war for the US. This is mainly because the battle in Somalia was a major turning point in US military history. The idea of losing even one soldier unnecessarily is a political disaster to the politicians calling the shots.
2) I never said the US had bad intentions. However, the politicians were misdirected in providing the necessary supplies to successfully complete their mission. In the book, they discussed that the General requested a number of attack helicopters and military tanks, however, the people in Congress turned down his request because they deemed that the supplies that they were given already was enough to accomplish their mission. [The APC that you saw in the movie was actually "borrowed" from the Pakistani military that was part of the UN.] Secondly, the politicians, including Clinton, made decisions that practically tired their hands of the military in charge in terms of what they can and cannot do.
Lastly, you said "AFAIK the US has (believe it or not) mostly used them only in clearly warlike situations such as in Yugoslavia." Now would you say that what is going on in Afghanistan is a war? If you believe so, you are clearly wrong. There are international regulations on wars, specifically on the fact that it has to be formally declared [Geneva Convention]. As of yet, the US and Congress has not formally declared war. Now, if this is a war, the Prisoners of War must be returned to their countries at the conclusion of battle. If that is the case, the "American Taliban" John Walker cannot be tried in the US Judicial courts and must be returned to Afghanistan when this "war" ends. This is a major dilemma.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Unless of course, he is still an American citizen. I have no idea if he renounced citizenship or not, but I would think if he's really still an American, then he would be held and tried like any other criminal, wartime or not.
Try it mate, I have a whole bag of pretzels here for you and your army to choke on.
And that makes North Vietnam a legitimate state? The USSR has been funding Ho Chi Minh since the early 50's!
it also quite often points out things that are anti-british. It can make an interesting read but unfortunately its mainly full of bullshit. Probably mainly due to the editor. This story is however true for a change.
:)
Still at least its better than the SUN trying to convince us that Europe is heading into depression and the euro is screwing everything up for them....only its not and it hasnt and its not going to
Actually, there is a law saying that you can lose your American citizenship if: "serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;" John Walker fits the second description. In effect, he is no longer a US citizen.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
One thing I noticed was that they had several Pro-Palestine articles while they also had a 'history' of Israel that was supportive of Israel.
I can't find it now, they seemed to have replaced it with the flash [or whatever] timeline.
I have not yet seen an objection from the irrational America haters (the rational ones do not annoy me, just the irrational ones) about the PROPER depiction of fire discipline. They dance all around it, but never come out and say it.
Perhaps they are objecting to this aspect of the movie and I am just missing it.
Anyway, I was glad to see, for the first time in my memory, fire discipline being shown on screen. None of the usual hollywood "5.56mm and 7.62mm firehose" scenes with unlimited ammunition. No destruction of property for sport, none of the nonsense that Hollywood adds to the mix that I spent uncounted months un-doing from the minds of soldiers as to the proper way to conduct a battle.
The orders were not to fire unless fired upon and that is what they did, in reality and in the movie. One scene with a kid with a SAW, his buddy asking why he is not firing: "they are not firing at us yet..." he then goes on to describe what it sounds like when you are being fired at and then begins firing "NOW they are shooting at us".
The next incident was one of many Officer nightmares. Solder tells his commander "hey they are shooting at us" Cdr: "well, shoot back!".
The Rangers and SOF guys were not depicted as brainless robots that show up with a finger on the trigger full-auto from start to finish. They were shown shooting when they needed to shoot and NOT shooting when they did not have a PROPER target. Nobody was burning homes or destroying buildings just for the hell of it either.
Finally, a depiction of what well trained troops do FOR REAL hits the screen and the leftists can't take it.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I know. I tried submitting an article about it and it got rejected. Even though fuel cells are a ways off, isn't it better to direct our attention to something other than tweeking engines based on fossil fuels? I'm not going to be shocked when/if someone comes up with a gasoline engine in a vehicle that can get 70 mpg. I'll be shocked when they can actually sell the contraption to the average US consumer.
...is hardly the term to use when a group of citizens of an autonomous country (whether Somalia or the USA) DEFEND THEMSELVES against an armed invading force.
If I break into your house and you hit me to make me leave, I am not *defending* myself if I hit you back, I'm merely adding assault to my burglary. Keep in mind who was in whose country with guns. Now, when can you arrange to have, say, Cuban troops arrive in your town for "peacekeeping" to help prevent all that crime?
Do you think non-Americans somehow have less right to kick out an invading force than, say, the U.S. did to British troops before the U.S. declared its independence?
People of any race will react the same way in similar situations. Whites, Asians, Indians, Hispanics, Native Americans.... Put them in a situation where they see another force as the aggressor and you can get a mob mentality similar to what happened in Somalia.
I didn't see them as barbarians. I saw them as desperate people who believed what Aidid told them, much to their detriment.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
What is your source for the death toll in Afghanistan? And has it been credibly verified? Please disclose !
vacuous coward
Don't let facts get in the way, sir.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Well, it was Europe with all its lack of sharp divisions that managed to start two wars and couse tens of millions casaulties.
I always thought Bush cynically put the troops in there because Clinton was all high about going in [generically] for humanitarian reasons, not oil, so this was a deliberate handoff for him.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
As a fellow American, i'm going to call you on this cop-out. We are responsible for the acts of our government. We cannot enjoy the priviledges of the American lifestyle without taking some of the credit/blame for American policies. (The same holds true for every citizen/nation.)
I may not agree with every decision made by my government, but unless i am always actively and publicly protesting, lobbying, and getting involved, i am giving tacit approval to my government's actions.
If i take the percentage of time i spent increasing my income, fiddling with my computer, and otherwise enjoying my life and that's the percentage of approval i've given to my government/society/culture/world.
I could get involved in the political process. I could get elected or appointed to a position of power if i work at it (or bribe my way into it). I could spend my time educating my elected representative and/or my fellow citizens. The system is not perfect and does not give enough power to individuals, but it is not independant from the individual.
I'm not suggesting that every one of us should devote ourselves 24/7 to politics, but we should be willing to admit that every minute that is not spent changing the world for the better is a minute that gives tacit approval to the status quo.
Ethically speaking, we are not responsible for the actions of every soldier in combat, we are not responsible for every bribe that a public official may take, and we are not responsible for every harmful policy an American company enacts, but we are responsible for the circumstances that allow these things to happen.
If i want to be free from blame, i must devote myself as much as possible changing the things i do not like. Otherwise i must accept that i are an accomplice to the misdeeds of my world. It is the unwillingness to take responsibility for our own actions and the actions of our institutions that has allowed our nation and our world to reach its current state.
Lesson from physics: things tends to follow the easiest path barring outside action. Like water flowing to the lowest point through the path of least resistance, so goes our world. Action is needed to change the course of a stream. Action is needed to change our world. Lack of action indicates approval of the current state and acceptance of the possible futures arising from it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Those that you have duly elected stand to profit massively if they can keep oil _supply_ price down, through military means.
...Can you guess plan b?
Don't be so coy. You put all the dot's on the map and supply the dark mysterious references but leave us to draw the conclusions for ourselves. Why not just come out and say what you are implying?
I see what you're getting at: Bush, Cheney and the bin Laden family want to make a huge amount of money from sales of Central Asian oil through an Afghan pipeline instead of the currently existing Russian pipeline. But, the Taliban won't play along & gives the contract to an Argintine firm even though bin Laden's Arab forces are a significant portion of their military power. Unable to get the Taliban to agree to the pipeline this secret Cartel needs a pretext to topple the Taliban and install a government that will allow the pipeline to be built by Americans. Bush, Cheney and the bin Ladens get Usama to blow up the Pentagon & the World Trade Center and so provide the needed pretext. The plan goes off perfectly - The WTC topples, Bush fakes a few tears, and we get the new Afghan government we wanted.
A few questions: How exactly do the evil oil baron's behind this plot (Bush, Cheney & the bin Laden's) benefit from lower oil prices? After spending many billions of dollars to pull off this plot why not just spend far less and buy the Argentine firm? Why not just have Usama topple the Taliban directly? Why pull off the plot using airplanes - a way that will surely have a huge negative effect on demand for their product (I suppose the as yet unexplained way that the oil cartel profits from lower prices would also answer this question)? Why not simply bypass Afghanistan with it's warring tribes and high mountains and build the pipeline in Iran which doesn't have those problems? Why the WTC & Pentagon? An embassy or two would have served just as well - weren't alot of the leaders of the secret military/insdustrial cabal killed at the WTC? Was it a power play within the cabal? Did one faction kill off another with this ploy? Or where they, like the Jews of the other conspiracy behind it all (according to many respectable Arab commentators), warned ahead of time? (Ahh, that explains why the Pentagon was attacked on the side furthest from Rumsfelds office!!) Was this oil cabal working in cooperation with the Isreali cabal I hear so much about on Al Jazeera? Was Vince Foster killed because he threatened to reveal this plan as well as Clinton & Bush Sr's Somolian Oil plot to the press? The military mission in support of Oil in Somalia was scuttled by Usama bin Laden's aid to Aidid - Why does Usama cooperate in the later Central Asian oil consipiracy? Is Usama bin Laden really the hero working against his own family and the rest of the Oil Cabal? Are "those of us in parts of the world with halfway credible media sources" who can "work this out" also bothered by the mysterious black helicopters that plague their comrades in America? (Apparently Aidid was - but he struck back against the cabal) Do you get visited by men in black after alien abductions like we do? Is the X-Files as credible a media outlet as the BBC?
Inquiring minds want to know - don't just hint darkly - come out and tell us plainly what your suspicions are.
Katz's entire article should be modded -1 Flamebait
Well, I guess that's better than his typical... Overrated.
If anyone is still reading this thread after all the uninformed extremist anti- and pro- American ranting, there is an excellent article currently over at Slate that explains the real political problems of this mission as opposed to the laughable conspiracy theories about oil you're reading about here.
Curiously, though, capitalist, i.e. free, countries rage ahead of others in quality of life and advancing the quality of life.
It is because capitalism is based on freedom, i.e. a moral stance where people can't pull out a gun and take money from others, or put their competition out of business, that allows security in activities and promotes such risk taking to begin with.
The "downtrodden" in America are a hell of a lot better off than in other countries that are based on preventing the "downtroddenism".
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Except that we didn't get involved in, what was that country again? It was in Africa, and over 500,000 people were hacked to death, many more had limbs hacked off.
What was that country's name? I can't remember either.
No oil there -- no argument for the oil conspiracy theorists.
And we couldn't go in just to help, that would be forcing our views on another country's right to self-determination. Nah, let's just watch it on TV. "Hey, there's those guys in that silly country, what's'it's'name!"
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
i truly hope that the situations, which have to be the most stressful one could bear, that happened in somalia, didnt dement this guys head to do what he did to that 12 year old.
i am left cold when i think of the hardships some men (veterans now) are forced to endure, and then not taken care of after the war.
dont forget the guys with the funny hats who always salute the flag at the parade might be veterans of WAR.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
The man was not run over by the convoy, they stopped to let him pass just like we would do in reality after getting out of town.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
According to the article, this guy was convicted in a US Military court and is serving time in a US Military prison.
Doesn't that refute the assertions by the left that the US Military condones, even coddles, lawlessness within the ranks?
Oh of course not, because the Left doesn't want it both ways, they want it EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.
When I saw the movie, the sequence of the second aircraft being hit, continuing on the mission, then having a major anti-torque failure seemed messed up.
When you feel a high-frequency vibration in the pedals that is a warning of eminant tail-rotor failure and you need to be heading to a safe place to land, NOT hanging around over hostile territory.
A co-worker (a retired Black Hawk Aviator) that actually met the surviving pilot when he was in the Army, informs me that the RPG took out the tail rotor and knocked off the stabilator at the same time, thus causing an uncontrollable situation resulting in the crash.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The Wall Street Journal recommends The True Story of 'Black Hawk Down' on The History Channel, first showing Monday night.
Unfortunately such honesty is impossible in our political climate. Unforunately it's going to take an epidemic to change our unsatiable consumption for Oil.
Good points.
If you've got the stomach for an extra helping of honesty about our Oil habit, then you might want to start asking some questions like this:
Reconcile that money stream the next time you're at the gas pump, cheering on U.S special forces in Afghanistan, risking their lives to rout the Taliban that sheltered bin Laden.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Americans have become jaded self-haters since Vietnam. Particularly the creative types in the movie business. Most are embarrassed by patriotism. The foreign directors seem to be able to see the more noble side of the American character that we take for granted.
There is a reason Cubans risk their lives crossing to Florida on rickety rafts. If you wanna spot who are the winners and losers of the world look where folks are migrating, voting with their feet and lives.
In case you're curious as to what went on over there, I give you two references.
3 ,4 318875,00.html
e 1. html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,427
http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97june2/3jul-unpeac
Enjoy.
"Is Donald Trump a racist? I'll let you decide 'Yes' for yourself."
One more thing you might be interested, although I'm sure it's been mentioned: Stebbins (aka 'Grimes' - name changed to protect the guilty) came home and then raped a 12 year old girl. If that clues you in as to his personality. What he did in Somalia was worse, though. I'll give you more references if you'd like.
These people were *brutal*. Loyal to each other; incredibly brutal to the locals. A US Army study done after the disaster found, additionally, that part of the problem was due to the fact that these all-white squadrons tended to have a strong racial superiority complex. At the least, that may be part of it, but I tend to put most of the blame on the individuals, especially given Stebbins's actions.
As usual, as we're doing in Afghanistan, we got our information from locals - from people who had rivals they wanted taken care of, and used us. And we fell for it then, and we keep falling for it. We really should learn not to trust local intel in places with heavy factional hatred.
"Is Donald Trump a racist? I'll let you decide 'Yes' for yourself."
So what if Conoco kept a building as big as whatever, dirt cheap, fo whatever.
If there were real oil reserves there were of the vastness that you imply then we would have had a presance like we had in Saudi/Kuwait/Iraq.
Where the hell were the tanks? Where was the Airforce? Where was the Navy?
Quit blindly following rhetoriticians and use some critical thinking.
There is more oil off the coast of the US that oil companies could get by coaxing the tree-hugging Congress into leases than there is in all of Somolia.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
To the rest of the world (I.E. that which exist outside America- ask for an "atlas" at your local library) the impression is given that "wogs begin at New Hampshire".
Americans eternally look inward but see nothing.
Lucius Sour
The Northern Alliance did the hand to hand bit, the British SAS did the commando bit and the us bombed from 5 miles up and only then committed ground forces.
Still, american history (all 52 seconds of it) comes from hollywood.
Lucius Sour
Are you a Socialist? Then kindly express yourself in a coherent manner. americans have too long been subject to the propaganda that Socialism is equivalent to slavery. This is understandable since the messengers have the most to lose from Socialism's adoption. I do not think that Socialism is a universal panacea, but us-style rampant capitalism is causing more slavery than anything else right now.
By the way, blowing up fellow European Socialists and their children is not the action of a Socialist.
Lucius
The Rangers and other SOF were arresting people responsible for murdering UN humanitarian aid workers.
This was just a courtasy for others. After reading other posts of yours it is obvious that you choose to be ignorant.
Where did you get that nonsense?
As an Army Aviator *I* knew that virtually any munition that could hit my aircraft could disable my aircraft. We took active precautions against guided missiles and relied on speed and suprize to lower the risk from small arms, RPG, etc.
Also, when consulting with ground forces I always try to give some instruction on where to shoot an aircraft with whatever you have at hand.
What Liberal Arts department taught you Military Science?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Special operations have never belonged on the battlefield. Special-ops units go into war in little packs of about 100 total in covert missions. Because the missions are so secret, the operatives typically work alone and may not call in support (which is probably in a training exercise thousands of miles away) like: a.) field artillery b.) tanks or armored personnel carriers c.) fixed-wing recon and attack aircraft d.) scout or attack helicopters (instead of the "school bus" Black Hawk) Imagine how the mission may have been improved with the support of a dozen M2 Bradley fighting vehicles or a pair of M1 Abrahms tanks and some recon in the sky. Instead, our politicians coaxed a few of our best into fighting thousands on foot or in humvees as hired hitmen at a cost that can be concealed from taxpayers. BHD is a perfect example of why what they do what shouldn't be done.
Right on, bro. I haven't seen BHD (and wish I could somehow without supporting it) but I did see Lord of the Rings and it IS an arayan fantasy, as you mentioned..
First many of those vocal people went in Rawnda under the form of a ONG. So do not put them down they did a good work with what they had. Second the problem is that when you are speaking of intervention you are always thinking "wagging war one one side" as seen in Somalia (and Kossovo). And that remind a lot of the other "intervention" I can think of since the 50' And I think this is were the US go wrong, and why mostly why people hate the US. But in Rwanda IMO what was sorely needed is mostly help for the refugee and simply an international presence to shill down agression fron the other side. Not bombing of the population. Furthermore there was nothing really commercial to gain there. Perhaps I am seeing too much evil were only disinterrest is, but I think that was the two main point why US never bothered considering rwanda.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
the action scenes in this movie were not that good, on a technical level. Katz says this movie makes Private Ryan look like an after school special, but the truth is that Private Ryan was light years ahead of Black Hawk in terms of sheer realism, despite having been made several years before. The action sequences in BH look like they were made ten years ago- no attempt to match muzzle blasts to bullet hits, no tracers whizzing through the air. BH was a big let down.