Replies

I don't think the movie is bad, and I don't in any way "dis" Eastwood. I don't think it's fantastic direction, but what do I know about movies? I just don't like the notion that the ONLY reason people fight and die is "for each other." Sorry. George Washington held together barely over 1,000 men that eventually defeated the British, and it wasn't "for each other," it was for the IDEA of liberty.

In Vietnam, 2/3 of the soldiers VOLUNTEERED. While some did it for thrills, many did it for the IDEA of liberty.

And surveys show that our troops in Iraq fully understand the ideas for which they fight---as well as "each other."

I just think Clint fell victim to a current "theology" in Hollywood that diminishes the role of ideas in human motivation.

I just think Clint fell victim to a current "theology" in Hollywood that diminishes the role of ideas in human motivation.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make in my Post 53, that Hollywood gets too one-dimensional, too caught up in the immediate, personal motivations, ignoring the "big picture," which is a real part of a soldier's motivation - in any war. Thanks for expanding on the point, I agree completely.

I still want to see this movie, and hope it is a good one. I think it is possible for Hollywood to take that narrow approach and still succeed in presenting a respectful treatment of the story.

At one point the publicity guy yapped about the how little fuel the U.S. had and made some remark about not being able to get any oil from the Arabs.

What a load! Arab oil didn't come on stream until long after the war.