Red Dawn vs. Iraq : A comparative discussion

onelongsong

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.

onelongsong

69charger wrote:

Born one. I love this country.

you and me both. i was born a rebel.

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

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...

Cosmo

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?

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

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

wavesonwheels

remember the hunting scene??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adBm7U9-8OM

Cosmo

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'.

onelongsong

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.

wavesonwheels

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.."

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

wavesonwheels wrote:

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.

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

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_barium

onelongsong wrote:

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?

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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 c

80's movies suck.




save ferris

Cosmo

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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...

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

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_barium

brain of c wrote:

80's movies suck.




save ferris

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

gue_barium

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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?