The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is the new book by Michael Moore, he of 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Stupid White Men' fame.
For those of you who don't know about him, Moore is one of those rare beasts; an angry liberal. The Oscar winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine, seethed with barely contained rage at the deliberate use of fear by the US government and media in order to keep people in line. The international bestseller, Stupid White Men, railed at the reality of America today; that the entire country is run for the benefit of a very few people, and that those people are happy to break and abuse the law to continue doing so.
'Dude, Where's my Country' is a follow up to 'Stupid White Men'. It deals with much the same theme as it's predecessor: How America is being run, and the direction it is heading in under Dubya and the Republican party.
Moore makes a number of quite startling accusations against Dubya and his government. So startling in fact that I found myself thinking "Nah, this can't be true...he must be exaggerating to make his point". Happily, references to the sources he drew the information from are provided in the book, so if you're as sad as I am, you can check the references and validate what he's saying yourself.
You may wish you hadn't though; Moore paints a very unwelcome picture of an America with numerous terrifying parallels to 30's Germany (in particular, the abuse of Patriotism; if you don't support Dubya/the Fuhrer, you're unpatriotic and woe betide you then...), and of a world in general that has more in common with 1984 than the fairytale that America is supposed to represent.
It's not all doom and gloom however. We in the UK have an image of Americans as reactionary conservatives with no interest in civil rights. Moore devotes a whole chapter to dispelling this myth. The average American is a lot more liberal than the average European. Unfortunately, Mr Average America is also a lot more apathetic, and this goes some way to explaining the disproportionate influence wielded by the extreme right in the US.
If I had to make a criticism of the book, it would be the tone used. Moore has a habit of transferring his rage directly onto the page. As such, some might be turned off by the angry rhetoric (and, occasionally, the snide sniping that one tends to associate with conservatives like Ann Coulter) that peppers the book.
But that would be to miss the point; one should concentrate on WHAT Moore says, and not the way in which he says it. Though the anger is palpable, Moore is also able to laugh at himself, as well as poking fun at his targets. This makes him a much easier read than, for example, the humourless displeasure that Dubya incurs in most other prominent liberals.
All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with any interest at all in politics and international events, regardless of their political slant. It's accessible and well written. Liberals will find themself nodding in agreement, Conservatives will doubtless not even bother to read it. But they should, as it will give any reader a lot to think about.
For those of you who don't know about him, Moore is one of those rare beasts; an angry liberal. The Oscar winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine, seethed with barely contained rage at the deliberate use of fear by the US government and media in order to keep people in line. The international bestseller, Stupid White Men, railed at the reality of America today; that the entire country is run for the benefit of a very few people, and that those people are happy to break and abuse the law to continue doing so.
'Dude, Where's my Country' is a follow up to 'Stupid White Men'. It deals with much the same theme as it's predecessor: How America is being run, and the direction it is heading in under Dubya and the Republican party.
Moore makes a number of quite startling accusations against Dubya and his government. So startling in fact that I found myself thinking "Nah, this can't be true...he must be exaggerating to make his point". Happily, references to the sources he drew the information from are provided in the book, so if you're as sad as I am, you can check the references and validate what he's saying yourself.
You may wish you hadn't though; Moore paints a very unwelcome picture of an America with numerous terrifying parallels to 30's Germany (in particular, the abuse of Patriotism; if you don't support Dubya/the Fuhrer, you're unpatriotic and woe betide you then...), and of a world in general that has more in common with 1984 than the fairytale that America is supposed to represent.
It's not all doom and gloom however. We in the UK have an image of Americans as reactionary conservatives with no interest in civil rights. Moore devotes a whole chapter to dispelling this myth. The average American is a lot more liberal than the average European. Unfortunately, Mr Average America is also a lot more apathetic, and this goes some way to explaining the disproportionate influence wielded by the extreme right in the US.
If I had to make a criticism of the book, it would be the tone used. Moore has a habit of transferring his rage directly onto the page. As such, some might be turned off by the angry rhetoric (and, occasionally, the snide sniping that one tends to associate with conservatives like Ann Coulter) that peppers the book.
But that would be to miss the point; one should concentrate on WHAT Moore says, and not the way in which he says it. Though the anger is palpable, Moore is also able to laugh at himself, as well as poking fun at his targets. This makes him a much easier read than, for example, the humourless displeasure that Dubya incurs in most other prominent liberals.
All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with any interest at all in politics and international events, regardless of their political slant. It's accessible and well written. Liberals will find themself nodding in agreement, Conservatives will doubtless not even bother to read it. But they should, as it will give any reader a lot to think about.
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> Bell...you made no mention at all of assistance offered towards
> entertainment whatsoever.
But you did. The comment you made was wrong because you implied help was only given to ones which showed US forces in a shining positive light. Look back, you said that.
> It is simply stating that Clancy has assistance for his
> books. One example, specifically about novels by one author.
> Is that difficult to understand?
Except, as I have stated, he has no assistance with NOVELS, the only assitance he gets is for non-fiction because it'd be rather b**ody hard to write about stuff like aircraft carriers, special ops and suchlike without access, wouldn't it ?
> And where are you getting "The Thin Red Line" from????
On a higher level it has that meaning, but at base level it's a war film.
> I'll quite happily discuss the works of Terence Malick with you, they
> were part of my thesis for my exams.
Seeing as I have barely heard of the guy, and only seen one film based on his book I'll pass on that.
> Views that you have gleaned
> through other reviews and not once taking the time to read them.
> I have not, at any point, argued the content of Clancy books.
Except you have.
> But you do not seem to understand that, and are determined to drag
> this thread concerning you arguing the facts of "Bowling for
> Colombine" and "Dude, where's my country" and
> "Stupid White Men" into a discussion about Tom Clancy.
Well if certain people weren't making points about his work then that wouldn't happen.
> Nobody, least of all myself, have said anything about the contents of
> his books.
> The ONLY comment about Clancy has been that his books are
> pro-government and that co-operation implies editorial control at
> worst, simpering aqquiescence to party line at best.
> Not one argument about what he has written. Nobody is talking about
> what his books are about.
Please explain how the above is not the most contradictory statement I have seen you type.
You say you have made no comment on the content of his books, then go on to comment on the content. You then go on to discuss content of non-fiction books which you have not read, and I guess Light hasn't either, even if he has read the fiction ones. You then say you are not talking about what his books are about, but you already have done.
> Nobody here has attacked, belittled, sneered and poured scorn upon
> Tom Clancy.
See above.
> But you cannot argue his work, in detail as you have done, without
> even reading it.
Yet that is what you are doing with Clancy.
The usual double standards in operation.
> Bell...you made no mention at all of assistance offered towards
> entertainment whatsoever.
But you did. The comment you made was wrong because you implied help was only given to ones which showed US forces in a shining positive light. Look back, you said that.
> It is simply stating that Clancy has assistance for his
> books. One example, specifically about novels by one author.
> Is that difficult to understand?
Except, as I have stated, he has no assistance with NOVELS, the only assitance he gets is for non-fiction because it'd be rather b**ody hard to write about stuff like aircraft carriers, special ops and suchlike without access, wouldn't it ?
> And where are you getting "The Thin Red Line" from????
On a higher level it has that meaning, but at base level it's a war film.
> I'll quite happily discuss the works of Terence Malick with you, they
> were part of my thesis for my exams.
Seeing as I have barely heard of the guy, and only seen one film based on his book I'll pass on that.
> Views that you have gleaned
> through other reviews and not once taking the time to read them.
> I have not, at any point, argued the content of Clancy books.
Except you have.
> But you do not seem to understand that, and are determined to drag
> this thread concerning you arguing the facts of "Bowling for
> Colombine" and "Dude, where's my country" and
> "Stupid White Men" into a discussion about Tom Clancy.
Well if certain people weren't making points about his work then that wouldn't happen.
> Nobody, least of all myself, have said anything about the contents of
> his books.
> The ONLY comment about Clancy has been that his books are
> pro-government and that co-operation implies editorial control at
> worst, simpering aqquiescence to party line at best.
> Not one argument about what he has written. Nobody is talking about
> what his books are about.
Please explain how the above is not the most contradictory statement I have seen you type.
You say you have made no comment on the content of his books, then go on to comment on the content. You then go on to discuss content of non-fiction books which you have not read, and I guess Light hasn't either, even if he has read the fiction ones. You then say you are not talking about what his books are about, but you already have done.
> Nobody here has attacked, belittled, sneered and poured scorn upon
> Tom Clancy.
See above.
> But you cannot argue his work, in detail as you have done, without
> even reading it.
Yet that is what you are doing with Clancy.
The usual double standards in operation.
I've ordered "Stupid White Men" and "Downsize This" because of these ravings so they'd better be good! :-P
Being a bit older they were relatively cheap.
I'll make sure I like him before splashing out on a new hardback. :-)
Being a bit older they were relatively cheap.
I'll make sure I like him before splashing out on a new hardback. :-)
Michael Moore Rocks.
End of argument.
End of argument.
Belldandy wrote:
> Which was wrong compared to what I had said about how it is decided
> which films get assistance. Hence, I told you to "read it
> again". Black Hawk Down and Thin Red Line are but two examples
> of films which most certainly do not show the US in the way you say.
Bell...you made no mention at all of assistance offered towards entertainment whatsoever.
The only mention, until I brought up refusal to co-operate in Tony Scott's case, of any kind of assistance was one tiny section of one paragraph:
You said
"Read what I said. The US Military decides on a case by case basis whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and non-fiction."
When what you said was:
"b)not all of his books are fiction and he has a whole series which were done with the full co-operation of the US Military/Navy/Air Force, DOD, Special Ops and so forth"
This is NOT talking about how it is decided which films get assistance. It is simply stating that Clancy has assistance for his books. One example, specifically about novels by one author.
Is that difficult to understand?
Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
You have not made any form of statement about how films get assistance until tonight, with the information in the post below.
Black Hawk Down? Sure it was botched, but they still fought heroically, they still saved their companions againts formidable opponents. Politically murky perhaps, but militarily shows the Delta teams to be 100% at the top of their game.
And where are you getting "The Thin Red Line" from????
That's a Terence Malick film highlighting the nature of man compared with that of nature, which is the more savage etc.
It's not a political film, or even a war movie. Is it an arthouse notion on the savagery inherent within man, compared to the actions of nature (violent but only when threatened etc)
I'll quite happily discuss the works of Terence Malick with you, they were part of my thesis for my exams.
> Co-operation as in if he asks for something he usually gets it. If
> you had READ the non-fiction books you would know that. You haven't,
> as you say so yourself, so if you want to continue berating me about
> Moore then you'll have to stop assuming things about books you have
> never read. Similarly, the fiction works do not involve any
> co-operation, nor do they follow the lines of official US policy.
The difference is Bell, you have specifically argued direct content of his books and movies, taken issue with those that have watched and read them, being 100% ignorant of the subject matter and had long drawn out circular arguments with informed people by simply using websites geared towards your own views. Views that you have gleaned through other reviews and not once taking the time to read them.
I have not, at any point, argued the content of Clancy books.
I have not berated Clancy at all, as you seem to continually miss the "You could argue" "It could be said", which is using supposition to highlight what people MAY think if they were so inclined.
Personally I have no care one way or the other about Clancy - his books are of no interest to me.
But you do not seem to understand that, and are determined to drag this thread concerning you arguing the facts of "Bowling for Colombine" and "Dude, where's my country" and "Stupid White Men" into a discussion about Tom Clancy.
When, at no point, have I attacked his abilities as an author nor called into question the veracity of his books.
Do you see?
> In Executive Action the President, following the use of a biological
> weapon in the USA which kills tens of thousands, uses special forces
> and a single stealth fighter to deliver a pin point strike to the
> location of the group which organised it, instead of attacking the
> entire nation, whose government inadvertently aided them.
>
> That is but one example, there are plenty more. Clacny's books
> featured the theme of a US-NATO-Russian alliance far earlier than
> anyone dated suggest such a thing for real for instance.
>
> You talk of one set in Central America, does it discuss the CIA
> operated and trained death squads that have been operational since
> the 1960's, and were instrumental in assassinating Archbishop Romero
> and his subsequent successor?
> I have said I have not read his works many many times, but I have
> read reviews and features on them, and have asked people, here, who
> are supposed to have read them, about them. Seeing as you guys have
> read it you should be able to confirm/refute the points, no ?
Yes we do. Except you cast them aside with "Well I'd never read that garbage nor allow it in my house ever".
You are not willing to discuss or listen, go check the very first comment you made in this thread.
You have asked, but have argued the content of his books and movies - WITHOUT HAVING SEEN OR READ ANYTHING BY HIM.
Is this not sinking in? You are not, despite your claims otherwise, simply asking questions.
You have been, and are continuing to, argue with people about books and films you have never seen.
The best you can do is use website to argue for you.
> I have not read Moore, I asked questions and stated what I had read
> about him.
No, you have disputed what people have said and scoured for deliberately anti-Moore sites to find ammunition with which to try and pour scorn upon both him and those that read him.
You have argued about the editing etc of a film you have never seen.
You have not responded to the points concerning the Wal-Mart sequence, or the Canadian sequence.
Why? Because that is non-inflammatory and you are unaware of what I'm talking about.
Because you haven't seen it.
Others have made points about Clancy which I felt untrue,
> as I have read most of his stuff, hence I can better refute those
> points.
Nobody, least of all myself, have said anything about the contents of his books.
The ONLY comment about Clancy has been that his books are pro-government and that co-operation implies editorial control at worst, simpering aqquiescence to party line at best.
Not one argument about what he has written. Nobody is talking about what his books are about.
It comes down, yet again, to somebody saying something you may sniff as being vaguely anti-American, and you plunging into a nit-picking, semantics filled contest over what a word could mean.
Seeing as some of those commenting on Clancy clearly have not
> read much of his, yet berate me for not reading Moore, it seems a
> strange situation.
Christ, you just don't see it.
You have attacked, belittled, sneered and poured scorn upon Michael Moore.
Yet you have not read nor seen a single piece of his work.
Nobody here has attacked, belittled, sneered and poured scorn upon Tom Clancy.
I am the ONLY person to discuss Clancy, and only because you originally said "Can anybody here tell me they've ever even read his books?"
I said "I read a bit of one, it wasn't my thing".
You then decided to go "HA! YOU'VE HARDLY EVEN READ HIM!"
"Yes, I said that"
You have crowbarred Tom Clancy into a discussion about a book by an author, where far from simply asking questions about his work, you waded in to lord it about and heap derision.
By arguing the specific content having never read it.
Nobody says you have to read him or even like him.
But you cannot argue his work, in detail as you have done, without even reading it.
> Which was wrong compared to what I had said about how it is decided
> which films get assistance. Hence, I told you to "read it
> again". Black Hawk Down and Thin Red Line are but two examples
> of films which most certainly do not show the US in the way you say.
Bell...you made no mention at all of assistance offered towards entertainment whatsoever.
The only mention, until I brought up refusal to co-operate in Tony Scott's case, of any kind of assistance was one tiny section of one paragraph:
You said
"Read what I said. The US Military decides on a case by case basis whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and non-fiction."
When what you said was:
"b)not all of his books are fiction and he has a whole series which were done with the full co-operation of the US Military/Navy/Air Force, DOD, Special Ops and so forth"
This is NOT talking about how it is decided which films get assistance. It is simply stating that Clancy has assistance for his books. One example, specifically about novels by one author.
Is that difficult to understand?
Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
You have not made any form of statement about how films get assistance until tonight, with the information in the post below.
Black Hawk Down? Sure it was botched, but they still fought heroically, they still saved their companions againts formidable opponents. Politically murky perhaps, but militarily shows the Delta teams to be 100% at the top of their game.
And where are you getting "The Thin Red Line" from????
That's a Terence Malick film highlighting the nature of man compared with that of nature, which is the more savage etc.
It's not a political film, or even a war movie. Is it an arthouse notion on the savagery inherent within man, compared to the actions of nature (violent but only when threatened etc)
I'll quite happily discuss the works of Terence Malick with you, they were part of my thesis for my exams.
> Co-operation as in if he asks for something he usually gets it. If
> you had READ the non-fiction books you would know that. You haven't,
> as you say so yourself, so if you want to continue berating me about
> Moore then you'll have to stop assuming things about books you have
> never read. Similarly, the fiction works do not involve any
> co-operation, nor do they follow the lines of official US policy.
The difference is Bell, you have specifically argued direct content of his books and movies, taken issue with those that have watched and read them, being 100% ignorant of the subject matter and had long drawn out circular arguments with informed people by simply using websites geared towards your own views. Views that you have gleaned through other reviews and not once taking the time to read them.
I have not, at any point, argued the content of Clancy books.
I have not berated Clancy at all, as you seem to continually miss the "You could argue" "It could be said", which is using supposition to highlight what people MAY think if they were so inclined.
Personally I have no care one way or the other about Clancy - his books are of no interest to me.
But you do not seem to understand that, and are determined to drag this thread concerning you arguing the facts of "Bowling for Colombine" and "Dude, where's my country" and "Stupid White Men" into a discussion about Tom Clancy.
When, at no point, have I attacked his abilities as an author nor called into question the veracity of his books.
Do you see?
> In Executive Action the President, following the use of a biological
> weapon in the USA which kills tens of thousands, uses special forces
> and a single stealth fighter to deliver a pin point strike to the
> location of the group which organised it, instead of attacking the
> entire nation, whose government inadvertently aided them.
>
> That is but one example, there are plenty more. Clacny's books
> featured the theme of a US-NATO-Russian alliance far earlier than
> anyone dated suggest such a thing for real for instance.
>
> You talk of one set in Central America, does it discuss the CIA
> operated and trained death squads that have been operational since
> the 1960's, and were instrumental in assassinating Archbishop Romero
> and his subsequent successor?
> I have said I have not read his works many many times, but I have
> read reviews and features on them, and have asked people, here, who
> are supposed to have read them, about them. Seeing as you guys have
> read it you should be able to confirm/refute the points, no ?
Yes we do. Except you cast them aside with "Well I'd never read that garbage nor allow it in my house ever".
You are not willing to discuss or listen, go check the very first comment you made in this thread.
You have asked, but have argued the content of his books and movies - WITHOUT HAVING SEEN OR READ ANYTHING BY HIM.
Is this not sinking in? You are not, despite your claims otherwise, simply asking questions.
You have been, and are continuing to, argue with people about books and films you have never seen.
The best you can do is use website to argue for you.
> I have not read Moore, I asked questions and stated what I had read
> about him.
No, you have disputed what people have said and scoured for deliberately anti-Moore sites to find ammunition with which to try and pour scorn upon both him and those that read him.
You have argued about the editing etc of a film you have never seen.
You have not responded to the points concerning the Wal-Mart sequence, or the Canadian sequence.
Why? Because that is non-inflammatory and you are unaware of what I'm talking about.
Because you haven't seen it.
Others have made points about Clancy which I felt untrue,
> as I have read most of his stuff, hence I can better refute those
> points.
Nobody, least of all myself, have said anything about the contents of his books.
The ONLY comment about Clancy has been that his books are pro-government and that co-operation implies editorial control at worst, simpering aqquiescence to party line at best.
Not one argument about what he has written. Nobody is talking about what his books are about.
It comes down, yet again, to somebody saying something you may sniff as being vaguely anti-American, and you plunging into a nit-picking, semantics filled contest over what a word could mean.
Seeing as some of those commenting on Clancy clearly have not
> read much of his, yet berate me for not reading Moore, it seems a
> strange situation.
Christ, you just don't see it.
You have attacked, belittled, sneered and poured scorn upon Michael Moore.
Yet you have not read nor seen a single piece of his work.
Nobody here has attacked, belittled, sneered and poured scorn upon Tom Clancy.
I am the ONLY person to discuss Clancy, and only because you originally said "Can anybody here tell me they've ever even read his books?"
I said "I read a bit of one, it wasn't my thing".
You then decided to go "HA! YOU'VE HARDLY EVEN READ HIM!"
"Yes, I said that"
You have crowbarred Tom Clancy into a discussion about a book by an author, where far from simply asking questions about his work, you waded in to lord it about and heap derision.
By arguing the specific content having never read it.
Nobody says you have to read him or even like him.
But you cannot argue his work, in detail as you have done, without even reading it.
Goatboy wrote:
> I have absolutely no idea, I am not familiar with the codes and
> practices of military assistance and what merits a worthy entry in
> every film.
From what I've read assistance is decided by the a section of the DOD Pulic Affairs office. They ask for a script and the films must follow certain guidelines and have someone from the DOD on set at to ensure the assistance is used as it was intended. The film does not have to be pro-US military to get assistance but if it is anti-US it must be based on some kind of reasonable fact. For example, no one disputes that the real events in Somalia that fateful day were a chaotic mess etc, hence that can be shown. Navy Seals was refused assistance for it's depiction of the US Navy Seals in it, and as such the film was worse off for it realism wise (a US Navy marked helicopter extracting a special forces team on a mission where they shouldn't be ? Yeah right....). Of course not all military films require assistance, Fox has a three of it's own Huey helicopters which it bought, and some stuff can be hired as well.
> I mentioned Tony Scott and the refusal to assist with Crimson Tide,
> you said "read it again" but failed to mention
> co-operational attitudes at any point.
You said:
> And please, the US government do not comply or offer information to
> ANY form of entertainment unless it shows them in an absolutely
> glorious light.
Which was wrong compared to what I had said about how it is decided which films get assistance. Hence, I told you to "read it again". Black Hawk Down and Thin Red Line are but two examples of films which most certainly do not show the US in the way you say.
Crimson Tide was probably refused assistance for it's unrealistic depiction of a breakdown in command on a nuclear submarine. I would have thought it was clear that no official involvement was granted to a film which distorted the truth of such a situation so much for obvious reasons. A DOD seal would give it credibility when it had little. Decent film yes, realistic film, no.
> You mentioned "Clancy writes with the co-operation of...",
> and I pointed out that if one were so inclined, it could be suggested
> that he therfore acts as a propaganda mouthpiece, conveying
> "edgy political drama" that happens to coincide with the
> authorised, sanctioned view as deemed correct by the institutions
> that run the country.
Co-operation as in if he asks for something he usually gets it. If you had READ the non-fiction books you would know that. You haven't, as you say so yourself, so if you want to continue berating me about Moore then you'll have to stop assuming things about books you have never read. Similarly, the fiction works do not involve any co-operation, nor do they follow the lines of official US policy.
In Executive Action the President, following the use of a biological weapon in the USA which kills tens of thousands, uses special forces and a single stealth fighter to deliver a pin point strike to the location of the group which organised it, instead of attacking the entire nation, whose government inadvertently aided them.
That is but one example, there are plenty more. Clacny's books featured the theme of a US-NATO-Russian alliance far earlier than anyone dated suggest such a thing for real for instance.
> You talk of one set in Central America, does it discuss the CIA
> operated and trained death squads that have been operational since
> the 1960's, and were instrumental in assassinating Archbishop Romero
> and his subsequent successor?
> An instance of a link:
> http://salt.claretianpubs.org/romero/romero.html
Not specifically, but certainly in that context. When a friend of the President's is killed along with his family by pirates working for a drugs cartel, he authorises a section of the CIA to undertake covert operations against the cartels in Central/South America. US Black ops teams are sent in and essentially begin a killing spree. At one point a US Navy fighter drops a guided smart bomb (guided by the black ops) onto the family home of a leader of a cartel during a meeting, which kills everyone - women, children, servants included). After that, the President decides he has had enough and the CIA cuts the support to the Black ops team, leaving them abandoned and hunted by the cartels. Ryan, Clancy's main character, learns what has happened, that he has inadvertently lied to a Congressional Subcomitte, and goes to try and extract the surviving Black ops. The story/film ends with a Congressional investigation, which later leads to the end of the President's, and those involved, careers. It's a relatively detailed book but this is the gist of it.
> And do I take it then, your continued ignoring and refusal to address
> the points concerning Michael Moore mean that you admit your initial
> attempts at arguing were a teensy bit stupid, seeing as you haven't
> read any of his books at all?
I have said I have not read his works many many times, but I have read reviews and features on them, and have asked people, here, who are supposed to have read them, about them. Seeing as you guys have read it you should be able to confirm/refute the points, no ?
> And I also presume that your focusing on Clancy and, now, military
> assistance with Hollywood productions, means you wish for all mention
> of Michael Moore and your unfamiliarity with his material to cease?
I have not read Moore, I asked questions and stated what I had read about him. Others have made points about Clancy which I felt untrue, as I have read most of his stuff, hence I can better refute those points. Seeing as some of those commenting on Clancy clearly have not read much of his, yet berate me for not reading Moore, it seems a strange situation.
> I have absolutely no idea, I am not familiar with the codes and
> practices of military assistance and what merits a worthy entry in
> every film.
From what I've read assistance is decided by the a section of the DOD Pulic Affairs office. They ask for a script and the films must follow certain guidelines and have someone from the DOD on set at to ensure the assistance is used as it was intended. The film does not have to be pro-US military to get assistance but if it is anti-US it must be based on some kind of reasonable fact. For example, no one disputes that the real events in Somalia that fateful day were a chaotic mess etc, hence that can be shown. Navy Seals was refused assistance for it's depiction of the US Navy Seals in it, and as such the film was worse off for it realism wise (a US Navy marked helicopter extracting a special forces team on a mission where they shouldn't be ? Yeah right....). Of course not all military films require assistance, Fox has a three of it's own Huey helicopters which it bought, and some stuff can be hired as well.
> I mentioned Tony Scott and the refusal to assist with Crimson Tide,
> you said "read it again" but failed to mention
> co-operational attitudes at any point.
You said:
> And please, the US government do not comply or offer information to
> ANY form of entertainment unless it shows them in an absolutely
> glorious light.
Which was wrong compared to what I had said about how it is decided which films get assistance. Hence, I told you to "read it again". Black Hawk Down and Thin Red Line are but two examples of films which most certainly do not show the US in the way you say.
Crimson Tide was probably refused assistance for it's unrealistic depiction of a breakdown in command on a nuclear submarine. I would have thought it was clear that no official involvement was granted to a film which distorted the truth of such a situation so much for obvious reasons. A DOD seal would give it credibility when it had little. Decent film yes, realistic film, no.
> You mentioned "Clancy writes with the co-operation of...",
> and I pointed out that if one were so inclined, it could be suggested
> that he therfore acts as a propaganda mouthpiece, conveying
> "edgy political drama" that happens to coincide with the
> authorised, sanctioned view as deemed correct by the institutions
> that run the country.
Co-operation as in if he asks for something he usually gets it. If you had READ the non-fiction books you would know that. You haven't, as you say so yourself, so if you want to continue berating me about Moore then you'll have to stop assuming things about books you have never read. Similarly, the fiction works do not involve any co-operation, nor do they follow the lines of official US policy.
In Executive Action the President, following the use of a biological weapon in the USA which kills tens of thousands, uses special forces and a single stealth fighter to deliver a pin point strike to the location of the group which organised it, instead of attacking the entire nation, whose government inadvertently aided them.
That is but one example, there are plenty more. Clacny's books featured the theme of a US-NATO-Russian alliance far earlier than anyone dated suggest such a thing for real for instance.
> You talk of one set in Central America, does it discuss the CIA
> operated and trained death squads that have been operational since
> the 1960's, and were instrumental in assassinating Archbishop Romero
> and his subsequent successor?
> An instance of a link:
> http://salt.claretianpubs.org/romero/romero.html
Not specifically, but certainly in that context. When a friend of the President's is killed along with his family by pirates working for a drugs cartel, he authorises a section of the CIA to undertake covert operations against the cartels in Central/South America. US Black ops teams are sent in and essentially begin a killing spree. At one point a US Navy fighter drops a guided smart bomb (guided by the black ops) onto the family home of a leader of a cartel during a meeting, which kills everyone - women, children, servants included). After that, the President decides he has had enough and the CIA cuts the support to the Black ops team, leaving them abandoned and hunted by the cartels. Ryan, Clancy's main character, learns what has happened, that he has inadvertently lied to a Congressional Subcomitte, and goes to try and extract the surviving Black ops. The story/film ends with a Congressional investigation, which later leads to the end of the President's, and those involved, careers. It's a relatively detailed book but this is the gist of it.
> And do I take it then, your continued ignoring and refusal to address
> the points concerning Michael Moore mean that you admit your initial
> attempts at arguing were a teensy bit stupid, seeing as you haven't
> read any of his books at all?
I have said I have not read his works many many times, but I have read reviews and features on them, and have asked people, here, who are supposed to have read them, about them. Seeing as you guys have read it you should be able to confirm/refute the points, no ?
> And I also presume that your focusing on Clancy and, now, military
> assistance with Hollywood productions, means you wish for all mention
> of Michael Moore and your unfamiliarity with his material to cease?
I have not read Moore, I asked questions and stated what I had read about him. Others have made points about Clancy which I felt untrue, as I have read most of his stuff, hence I can better refute those points. Seeing as some of those commenting on Clancy clearly have not read much of his, yet berate me for not reading Moore, it seems a strange situation.
Goatboy wrote:
> Ok, I don't know because C&C games don't appeal, but I'm not
> understanding how that is witty, ironic and sarcastic?
> How are the GLA depicted in certain ways as well as The Chinese?
> I'm not trying to nitpick, but I've never played it and am interested
> in the depiction of the opponents.
Fair point.
The GLA's sound bytes (their speech when you tell them to do something) are in comedy arab voice, the kind of thing you get when someone tries to impersonate a foreign accent but actually ends up with silly english.
Unit wise, the GLA is a rag tag army but has a number of stereotypical depictions of foreign army / military forces - technicals, tanks made out of scrap. Units of note:
*the 'Angry Mob' - a crowd of civilians madly waving AK47's and that, with upgrades, toss a never ending supply of molotovs at targets. They shout vaguely anti-imperialistic cathphrases and the like.
*toxin tractor - stupider than the most fevered ideas of any anti-terrorism think tank, a tractor that sprays green chemicals, including a liquid green anthrax....
*SCUDS - with pinipoint accuracy...ahem
*Bomb Trucks - can be fitted with explosives/chemical weapons.
Essentially a collection of every Hollywood depiction known since the late 60's.
Buildings wise they are your typical cliche'd basic structures. Part of base defence is a tunnel network which allows the GLA to hide (another reference), and when GLA buildings are destroyed they need their tunnel entrances destroyed as well or the building rebuilds itself. I'm sure the symbolism there is clear. Arms dealer buildings are the source of all technology and weapons for the most part, whilst China and the USA build theres (another reference). Again, whilst the other sides develop their own super weapons, the GLA has a Black Market building. The Palace is also home to all manner of wacky upgrades. Not to mention the hilarious SCUD storm building, which fires 8 SCUDS in one go.
The Chinese have a very Soviet look to them, but their strength lies in nuclear units and weapons (which America does not have in the game, ahem), and also in their hacker units. They are an underhand, trickster, side. A central character is Black Lotus, a leather clad female hacker ala a chinese Trinity. China's other strengths come from propoganda units which boost the power of the Chinese units the greater in number they are. The impression is that the Chinese are tide of units.
Strangely, as the storyline moves on, China allies with the USA (yeah right).
I'm not very good at explaining it all, because you really have to see and hear it in action to fully see it, but it is like a parody of the whole war on terror type thing with digs etc at all sides involved and not just the enemy Other.
> Ok, I don't know because C&C games don't appeal, but I'm not
> understanding how that is witty, ironic and sarcastic?
> How are the GLA depicted in certain ways as well as The Chinese?
> I'm not trying to nitpick, but I've never played it and am interested
> in the depiction of the opponents.
Fair point.
The GLA's sound bytes (their speech when you tell them to do something) are in comedy arab voice, the kind of thing you get when someone tries to impersonate a foreign accent but actually ends up with silly english.
Unit wise, the GLA is a rag tag army but has a number of stereotypical depictions of foreign army / military forces - technicals, tanks made out of scrap. Units of note:
*the 'Angry Mob' - a crowd of civilians madly waving AK47's and that, with upgrades, toss a never ending supply of molotovs at targets. They shout vaguely anti-imperialistic cathphrases and the like.
*toxin tractor - stupider than the most fevered ideas of any anti-terrorism think tank, a tractor that sprays green chemicals, including a liquid green anthrax....
*SCUDS - with pinipoint accuracy...ahem
*Bomb Trucks - can be fitted with explosives/chemical weapons.
Essentially a collection of every Hollywood depiction known since the late 60's.
Buildings wise they are your typical cliche'd basic structures. Part of base defence is a tunnel network which allows the GLA to hide (another reference), and when GLA buildings are destroyed they need their tunnel entrances destroyed as well or the building rebuilds itself. I'm sure the symbolism there is clear. Arms dealer buildings are the source of all technology and weapons for the most part, whilst China and the USA build theres (another reference). Again, whilst the other sides develop their own super weapons, the GLA has a Black Market building. The Palace is also home to all manner of wacky upgrades. Not to mention the hilarious SCUD storm building, which fires 8 SCUDS in one go.
The Chinese have a very Soviet look to them, but their strength lies in nuclear units and weapons (which America does not have in the game, ahem), and also in their hacker units. They are an underhand, trickster, side. A central character is Black Lotus, a leather clad female hacker ala a chinese Trinity. China's other strengths come from propoganda units which boost the power of the Chinese units the greater in number they are. The impression is that the Chinese are tide of units.
Strangely, as the storyline moves on, China allies with the USA (yeah right).
I'm not very good at explaining it all, because you really have to see and hear it in action to fully see it, but it is like a parody of the whole war on terror type thing with digs etc at all sides involved and not just the enemy Other.
Belldandy wrote:
> And whilst we're here, why was help rendered to the filming of
> Blackhawk Down (barely a positive depiction there).
I have absolutely no idea, I am not familiar with the codes and practices of military assistance and what merits a worthy entry in every film.
I mentioned Tony Scott and the refusal to assist with Crimson Tide, you said "read it again" but failed to mention co-operational attitudes at any point.
You mentioned "Clancy writes with the co-operation of...", and I pointed out that if one were so inclined, it could be suggested that he therfore acts as a propaganda mouthpiece, conveying "edgy political drama" that happens to coincide with the authorised, sanctioned view as deemed correct by the institutions that run the country.
You talk of one set in Central America, does it discuss the CIA operated and trained death squads that have been operational since the 1960's, and were instrumental in assassinating Archbishop Romero and his subsequent successor?
An instance of a link:
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/romero/romero.html
And do I take it then, your continued ignoring and refusal to address the points concerning Michael Moore mean that you admit your initial attempts at arguing were a teensy bit stupid, seeing as you haven't read any of his books at all?
And I also presume that your focusing on Clancy and, now, military assistance with Hollywood productions, means you wish for all mention of Michael Moore and your unfamiliarity with his material to cease?
> And whilst we're here, why was help rendered to the filming of
> Blackhawk Down (barely a positive depiction there).
I have absolutely no idea, I am not familiar with the codes and practices of military assistance and what merits a worthy entry in every film.
I mentioned Tony Scott and the refusal to assist with Crimson Tide, you said "read it again" but failed to mention co-operational attitudes at any point.
You mentioned "Clancy writes with the co-operation of...", and I pointed out that if one were so inclined, it could be suggested that he therfore acts as a propaganda mouthpiece, conveying "edgy political drama" that happens to coincide with the authorised, sanctioned view as deemed correct by the institutions that run the country.
You talk of one set in Central America, does it discuss the CIA operated and trained death squads that have been operational since the 1960's, and were instrumental in assassinating Archbishop Romero and his subsequent successor?
An instance of a link:
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/romero/romero.html
And do I take it then, your continued ignoring and refusal to address the points concerning Michael Moore mean that you admit your initial attempts at arguing were a teensy bit stupid, seeing as you haven't read any of his books at all?
And I also presume that your focusing on Clancy and, now, military assistance with Hollywood productions, means you wish for all mention of Michael Moore and your unfamiliarity with his material to cease?
Belldandy wrote:
> Because it's all so cliche for a start. The US troops answer in
> exagerated ways and purposely have fewer responses (in other words
> they repeat catchphrases more often). The GLA side (terrorists) are
> depicted in certain ways, same for the Chinese.
Ok, I don't know because C&C games don't appeal, but I'm not understanding how that is witty, ironic and sarcastic?
How are the GLA depicted in certain ways as well as The Chinese?
I'm not trying to nitpick, but I've never played it and am interested in the depiction of the opponents.
> Because it's all so cliche for a start. The US troops answer in
> exagerated ways and purposely have fewer responses (in other words
> they repeat catchphrases more often). The GLA side (terrorists) are
> depicted in certain ways, same for the Chinese.
Ok, I don't know because C&C games don't appeal, but I'm not understanding how that is witty, ironic and sarcastic?
How are the GLA depicted in certain ways as well as The Chinese?
I'm not trying to nitpick, but I've never played it and am interested in the depiction of the opponents.
I nearly bought it today
How is it compared to Stupid White Men?
How is it compared to Stupid White Men?
Belldandy wrote:
> And whilst we're here, why was help rendered to the filming of
> Blackhawk Down (barely a positive depiction there).
>
> There is nothing sinister in people refusing to help those who paint
> inaccurate pictures of an organisation (ala Crimson Tide and Navy
> Seals, to name but two).
Okay, fair enough.
Now; how does any of that change the fact that you are a cretin who is criticising something he has never read or seen?
> And whilst we're here, why was help rendered to the filming of
> Blackhawk Down (barely a positive depiction there).
>
> There is nothing sinister in people refusing to help those who paint
> inaccurate pictures of an organisation (ala Crimson Tide and Navy
> Seals, to name but two).
Okay, fair enough.
Now; how does any of that change the fact that you are a cretin who is criticising something he has never read or seen?
Page: