Red Dawn vs. Iraq : A comparative discussion

2

Comments

  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're not on either side.

    Sure I am.
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Specifics wrote:
    so you lost when you didnt sign up?

    Love it or leave it right back at ya! ;)
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    69charger wrote:
    Sure I am.

    I guess I have to ask. Since when have you been an insurgent?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • SpecificsSpecifics Posts: 417
    69charger wrote:
    Love it or leave it right back at ya! ;)

    I left the army less than 6 mths ago, i left because i'm not on your side.
    I'll leave it.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Specifics wrote:
    You should watch Independence Day, its even better, Will Smith actually knocked an alien clean out with ONE PUNCH man!!
    thats the way we're gonna have to deal with those alien fuckers when they finally get the balls to come down here!

    what are you talking about?
  • SpecificsSpecifics Posts: 417
    what are you talking about?

    Im backing you up, the film Independance Day you know? its about as factual as ghostbusters, but....the movie portrays how americans could and would save the world from alien invaders. I'm with you.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    gue_barium wrote:
    It isn't relevant to Iraq. I mean, even if you want to use the comparison of insurgencies, these are two different ball games. One is fantasy, the other is real. In the fantasy, America has a fighting chance. In reality, Iraq insurgents are radically outgunned and outmanned.
    As for citizens being armed...I'm fairly certain the Iraqi population has a higher private gun ownership per capita than does the US. Again, that doesn't do a whole lot in the face of tanks, and bombs dropping down overhead.

    one is not fantacy. it is history represented in a modern day context. in reality; america has every chance to win against an invasion. you can count on at least 50 million citizens to take up arms to protect their homeland. there isn't a country with 50 million in their armies. anyone attacking the us is out gunned and out maned. plus we have home court advantage. we know where to ambush; topography; and all the other advantages.
    i'm fairly certain that saddam disarmed the population or he couldn't have stayed in power. the insurgents are being supplied guns and bombs from outside if iraq. but they have the home court advantage and we'll never win until we flood the country with troops. that's our only chance. secure the borders and fight from the outside in. america has the guns and ammo inside the country. america also has vast wilderness which wouldn't be bombed. not to mention that bombers will not be able to fly in. the military can protect the skys.
  • SpecificsSpecifics Posts: 417
    one is not fantacy. it is history represented in a modern day context. in reality; america has every chance to win against an invasion. you can count on at least 50 million citizens to take up arms to protect their homeland. there isn't a country with 50 million in their armies. anyone attacking the us is out gunned and out maned. plus we have home court advantage. we know where to ambush; topography; and all the other advantages.
    i'm fairly certain that saddam disarmed the population or he couldn't have stayed in power. the insurgents are being supplied guns and bombs from outside if iraq. but they have the home court advantage and we'll never win until we flood the country with troops. that's our only chance. secure the borders and fight from the outside in. america has the guns and ammo inside the country. america also has vast wilderness which wouldn't be bombed. not to mention that bombers will not be able to fly in. the military can protect the skys.

    dude give the weed a break for a week or so.

    the military can protect the skies? but on the ground the military is overwhelmed? think about it.
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    gue_barium wrote:
    I guess I have to ask. Since when have you been an insurgent?

    Born one. I love this country.
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Specifics wrote:
    I left the army less than 6 mths ago, i left because i'm not on your side.
    I'll leave it.

    Thank you for your service. Have fun in France.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Specifics wrote:
    dude give the weed a break for a week or so.

    the military can protect the skies? but on the ground the military is overwhelmed? think about it.

    dude; the military cannot be deployed on american soil. only the national guard. we have radar in the skies; no radar for ground troops. we have ground to air missles and missles on f-16s to shoot down aircraft but america will never bomb it's own country. think a bit before you type. it's all common sense.
    once again i point to iraq to prove the military can be overwhelmed by a handfull of insurgents.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    69charger wrote:
    Born one. I love this country.

    you and me both. i was born a rebel.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    one is not fantacy. it is history represented in a modern day context. in reality; america has every chance to win against an invasion. you can count on at least 50 million citizens to take up arms to protect their homeland. there isn't a country with 50 million in their armies. anyone attacking the us is out gunned and out maned. plus we have home court advantage. we know where to ambush; topography; and all the other advantages.
    i'm fairly certain that saddam disarmed the population or he couldn't have stayed in power. the insurgents are being supplied guns and bombs from outside if iraq. but they have the home court advantage and we'll never win until we flood the country with troops. that's our only chance. secure the borders and fight from the outside in. america has the guns and ammo inside the country. america also has vast wilderness which wouldn't be bombed. not to mention that bombers will not be able to fly in. the military can protect the skys.

    Willie. It is a fantasy movie. If you want to see American history and war on American (http://blkirk.myweb.uga.edu/webpage/pilgrim.jpeg) soil you can see Last of the Mohicans, and even better Revolution with Al Pacino. A movie is a movie, but if you're going to cite historical representation in a movie, you should stear clear of fantasy.

    Anyway...no Hussein did disarm the population. After the invasion, 1, 000's of Iraqi's buried their firearms in the dirt, usually in their yards...

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    69charger wrote:
    That's completely true but I am not on thier side, are you?
    ...
    Sides? Who's side? The Sunnis? The Shi'ites?
    The U.S. is a referree over there. Since when to referrees win?
    ...
    I think the fucking Iraqis need to step up and figure it out... I think America needs to pay for all of the damages we have made over there and foot the bill for ALL rebuilding costs. I want Iraqis to run Iraq, not Americans.
    I don't know which 'SIDE' I'm on. You tell me... based upon what I have just stated... whose side am I on?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    you and me both. i was born a rebel.


    here you go, john wayne.
    March 2003:
    I have twice seen the same film clip on CBS news: an Iraqi citizen buying what looks like a machine gun (Kalashnikov), and another citizen trying out a semi-automatic pistol’s slide action. Both times, the voice-over warned of Iraqis preparing to defend themselves.

    Nobody mentions the obvious: unless the film clip was staged, Saddam Hussein lets Iraqis buy guns and ammo.


    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north165.html

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • wavesonwheelswavesonwheels Posts: 101
    remember the hunting scene??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adBm7U9-8OM
    no time this time to feign reluctance
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    gue_barium wrote:
    Willie. It is a fantasy movie. If you want to see American history and war on American (http://blkirk.myweb.uga.edu/webpage/pilgrim.jpeg) soil you can see Last of the Mohicans, and even better Revolution with Al Pacino. A movie is a movie, but if you're going to cite historical representation in a movie, you should stear clear of fantasy.

    Anyway...no Hussein did disarm the population. After the invasion, 1, 000's of Iraqi's buried their firearms in the dirt, usually in their yards...
    ...
    Durng the first Gulf War... Iraqis were handed firearms of all sort and instructed to 'fire into the air' when the air raid sirens sounded. That's how stupid they were. Imagine the entire population of Atlanta each handed an AK-47 or AK-74 and ran into the street and fired randomly into the air at the same time.
    Iraqis weren't 'disarmed'.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    gue_barium wrote:
    Willie. It is a fantasy movie. If you want to see American history and war on American (http://blkirk.myweb.uga.edu/webpage/pilgrim.jpeg) soil you can see Last of the Mohicans, and even better Revolution with Al Pacino. A movie is a movie, but if you're going to cite historical representation in a movie, you should stear clear of fantasy.

    Anyway...no Hussein did disarm the population. After the invasion, 1, 000's of Iraqi's buried their firearms in the dirt, usually in their yards...

    and once again; i didn't cite anything. i compared the movie to the situation in iraq as the opening post of the thread requested. i compared how the movie represented how americans would handle an invasion to the way i thought americans would handle an invasion; then cross referenced it with the insurgents in iraq. if you have a learning disability please tell me and i'll be more patient in explaining this to you.
  • wavesonwheelswavesonwheels Posts: 101
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Durng the first Gulf War... Iraqis were handed firearms of all sort and instructed to 'fire into the air' when the air raid sirens sounded. That's how stupid they were. Imagine the entire population of Atlanta each handed an AK-47 or AK-74 and ran into the street and fired randomly into the air at the same time.
    Iraqis weren't 'disarmed'.


    iraqis are entitled to own a firearm .. it is similar to our 2nd amendment .. it is in their new constitution

    "from my cold (brown) dead hand.."
    no time this time to feign reluctance
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    and once again; i didn't cite anything. i compared the movie to the situation in iraq as the opening post of the thread requested. i compared how the movie represented how americans would handle an invasion to the way i thought americans would handle an invasion; then cross referenced it with the insurgents in iraq. if you have a learning disability please tell me and i'll be more patient in explaining this to you.

    I need no explanations from you.

    "Red Dawn"
    OLS:
    "the fact remains that every invasion on american soil was fought by armed citizens."
    "it showed why; in modern time the second amendment is still relevant."
    "i loved it too. it answered questions about how we'd protect ourselves."
    "after thinking about this; i think the movie showed how we would have to fight against an invasion."
    "the american revolutionists learned from the american indians. "
    "the movie was a portrayal of how americans won every fight on it's mainland from it's conception."
    Comparisons about the insurgency, right.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    iraqis are entitled to own a firearm .. it is similar to our 2nd amendment .. it is in their new constitution

    "from my cold (brown) dead hand.."

    now they can own firearms to defend their freedom; the same as any free nation; but did they own them prior to our invasion? i can't imagine a people being able to defend themselves yet they choose to be oppressed; mistreated; and bow to a ruthless dictator. every other dictator in history disarmed the citizens to have absolute rule over them. i can't see someone like saddam allowing the people to posess firearms when he would be their most likely target.
  • now they can own firearms to defend their freedom; the same as any free nation; but did they own them prior to our invasion? i can't imagine a people being able to defend themselves yet they choose to be oppressed; mistreated; and bow to a ruthless dictator. every other dictator in history disarmed the citizens to have absolute rule over them. i can't see someone like saddam allowing the people to posess firearms when he would be their most likely target.


    Cosmos already addressed this point. Iraqis had guns.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    gue_barium wrote:
    I need no explanations from you.

    "Red Dawn"
    OLS:
    "the fact remains that every invasion on american soil was fought by armed citizens."
    "it showed why; in modern time the second amendment is still relevant."
    "i loved it too. it answered questions about how we'd protect ourselves."
    "after thinking about this; i think the movie showed how we would have to fight against an invasion."
    "the american revolutionists learned from the american indians. "
    "the movie was a portrayal of how americans won every fight on it's mainland from it's conception."
    Comparisons about the insurgency, right.


    i'll type slower.

    all comparisons between the movie; what happened in the past; and my opinion. you left out the cross reference to the insurgents having the home court advantage but that's ok. i understand.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    now they can own firearms to defend their freedom; the same as any free nation; but did they own them prior to our invasion? i can't imagine a people being able to defend themselves yet they choose to be oppressed; mistreated; and bow to a ruthless dictator. every other dictator in history disarmed the citizens to have absolute rule over them. i can't see someone like saddam allowing the people to posess firearms when he would be their most likely target.

    Did you even read the link I provided?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Cosmos already addressed this point. Iraqis had guns.


    sorry; i'm looking for fact and not conjecture. let's see a link or other historical evidence. just because they had them prior to saddam becoming a dictator (when he was our friend) doesn't mean he didn't disarm them later.
  • brain of cbrain of c Posts: 5,213
    80's movies suck.




    save ferris
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Cosmos already addressed this point. Iraqis had guns.
    ....
    and guess who's disarming Iraqis now?
    If you said, "Americans"... give yourself a Gold Star.
    ...
    Isn't it ironic? Like ray-eeeeeee-aine on a rainy day...
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • sorry; i'm looking for fact and not conjecture. let's see a link or other historical evidence. just because they had them prior to saddam becoming a dictator (when he was our friend) doesn't mean he didn't disarm them later.


    Here's an article that talked about the US attempt to disarm Iraqis

    http://wmsa.net/news/AFP/030601_iraq_gun_control.htm

    interesting quote at the end...from an iraqi...that was there during saddam....


    http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=45107

    another article and another statement that says even saddam didnt try to disarm the iraqis.


    and yet another one

    http://www.darrenweeks.net/2003/04/saddams-gun-control-policy-use-both.html


    Not to mention gue's link
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    brain of c wrote:
    80's movies suck.




    save ferris

    ferris sucked.
    hell, red dawn was better than ferris, and red dawn sucked.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Here's an article that talked about the US attempt to disarm Iraqis

    http://wmsa.net/news/AFP/030601_iraq_gun_control.htm

    interesting quote at the end...from an iraqi...that was there during saddam....


    http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=45107

    another article and another statement that says even saddam didnt try to disarm the iraqis.


    and yet another one

    http://www.darrenweeks.net/2003/04/saddams-gun-control-policy-use-both.html


    Not to mention gue's link

    Thanks for the links.

    Is the date of this policy correct? January 2007?

    correct link edit: http://wmsa.net/news/AFP/030601_iraq_gun_control.htm
    Talk about the real Tyrants. Eh, OLS?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Sign In or Register to comment.