• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Charlie Wilson's War, movie review and thoughts

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,184
1
0
I just watched Charlie Wilson's War and I'd like to start off by saying I recommend this movie to everyone. All throughout the movie I remained with a sunken heart because it's such a glaring example of how we've become exactly what we used to hate. One qoute especially sticks out in my mind and that's when Charlie said of Gust, "what he fears is one day God will be on both sides". :(

The movie does a good job displaying how we meddle. I personally have no qualms with what what we did in Afghan other than we're fighting the people we trained today. That would've been avoidable if we wouldn't have bases in countries that aren't the USA and wouldn't fund Israel. Pretty simple root cause to 9/11 and a pretty simple solution to the root of the problem, but no one wants to do it.

I was pretty much with the tax and spend Republicans up until they took over power and I oppose the 1st Gulf War. I didn't really split till GWB and Iraq though. Too many lies, deceit and just no benefit for the average American, the same ones who are truly sacrificing with their lives while the US military is used to defend private companies. It might be different if we were serving anyones best interests other than big oil, Osama's soaring recruitment, and Israeli interests.

It's a rape of our country and what's even sadder is the thought-crime laws that are around unopposed today. We're becoming just like the USSR and no one seems to care because Americans are falling for the fear-mongering. It's always an enemy, now we have an invisible one.. "terrorism". Good luck winning the war on a tactic. So I broke from the Republican party, no longer have faith in the current 2 party system and am a Libertarian who votes for the best man. I'm also a strong Methodist (that's a Christian) but completely seperate my beliefs from my politics. I use common sense and I guess my belief does effect some of my politics, my belief system is 100% opposed to everything George Bush has done. He claims to be a Methodist too but the church is absolutely opposed to him. It's a very "liberal" church, though in reality they are just good Christians who don't kill people for no reason. The Christians that give Christianity a good name because it follows the golden rule in the adult world rather than just teaching it to children then laughing about bombing innocent civilians in Iraq.

The best man for the job right now thats by far, hands down and no questions asked Ron Paul. Out of Juan McAmnesty, Hillary and Obama.. Obama is clearly the best but a bit much of a war monger when I say we had our shot at war. Time to try peace, no more invasions.. period. If you don't have Osama by now, I'm not going to personally support losing more lives. I don't trust the government anymore and its time to come home. No more of this bait and switch crap. If someone thinks more wars are a good idea, time to suit up. Get the job done. We've lost enough lives in vain, no more blood on American hands. It's a national disgrace.

I'm also worried with all this crying wolf that we've done with Vietnam and now the Crusades 2.0 that when a real threat confronts us we'll be so demoralized from LBJ/GWB's shananigans that no one will be willing to go.
Mostly the rape of our civil liberties is the biggest affront and the true downfall of the USA, not the economic inflation disaster and resultant theft of the middle class's hard earned savings, but really the fact our Constitution is being raped tag-team style by nearly every politician.

Economic prosperity comes and goes, but a once in a few thousand year chance to have a true Constitutional Republic that is actually respected doesn't. :( Besides, I'm not big on materialism and fake consumer culture. I think it's ok it exists but I'm not much for celebrity worship or watching braindead television (in fact I refuse to subscribe to cable and use AppleTV). :)

Anyway, this movie made me think a lot during it. Mostly sad but also that sometimes a statesman like Charlie Wilson can break dogmatic party politics and do something he personally feels is right and to have the courage to do so. Knowing his story makes me feel proud to be an American and that moment in the movie where he explained when he fell in love with America made me think of when that was for me. I think definitely the moment I found out there was a guy out there like Ron Paul, who even breaks rank from the libertarian stances and supports his own views on certain issues.. I respect that. So much so that I stayed up till 3am writing a speech advocating for him and delivered it in front of 500 people, was interrupted in the middle of the speech with loud applause and received the loudest applause of the night at the end.. then spread the speech to another part of the state to spread awareness about his vision of America to more people.
Ron Paul opened my mind with his "new" yet classically conservative ideas. I'm now an avid supporter of other proponents of a similar foreign policy such as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Though I don't agree with them on all issues as much as I do Ron, I certainly can be counted on by them in any future political endeavors and donated some cash to Kucinich's reelection.. again not nearly the amount I've given to Ron. If we had more statesmen like Ron Paul I'd be incredibly motivated, but he is too pro-American for most people. He doesn't give a crap about the lobbyists and zionists and Christian right and all these groups.. he's just 100% American loyal to the bone and I simply LOVE IT. A side effect is how truly and deeply betrayed I feel by most politicians like Bush and most of the Democrats as well for not cutting off funding to the war. Any lapdog to Bush or his agenda just boils my blood. Party politics are worthless because they are always PANDERING to someone.

That's when I fell in love with my country, when I knew I had personally made a difference in at least some people's lives regarding their opinion of our current state of affairs. Just to feel that motivated is a wonderful thing.

Anyway if you haven't seen the movie I think it's a must see. Looking forward to your comments.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
I didn't watch the movie but did catch the documentary on him on the history channel. Don't recall them mentioning Isreal once even though you managed to slip it in several times.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
79
91
Originally posted by: lupi
I didn't watch the movie but did catch the documentary on him on the history channel. Don't recall them mentioning Isreal once even though you managed to slip it in several times.
He also slipped in a whole bunch of Ron Paul. The documentary never mentioned him either.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Too much Ron Paul and I don't know where you came up with the conclusion of Obama being a war mongeror. Isn't he the only candidate who discussed opening diplomatic talks with nations we haven't been talking to? I've read him criticized and called 'soft' and a 'pussy' for just that. Anyway, IMO him not taking war off the table doesn't make him a war mongeror.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,050
126
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
"In 1989, when he lost the national election to Guillermo Endara, Noriega "nullified" the election and maintained power by force, making him severely unpopular among Panamanians. Bush called on Noriega to honor the will of the Panamanian people, and Noriega responded by publicly brutalizing Endara, who had rightfully won the election"

Perhaps that was the reason?
Along with the need to safe guard the Panama Canal?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,841
1,158
126
PJ, I haven't gone back and looked it up but wasn't Noriega already under criminal indictment in the US for his drug offenses before we invaded Panama?

In any event, I'm uneasy to any parallels drawn to Panama, a country that the US always has had a special relationship with. After all, Teddie Roosevelt basically created the country so we could buy the canal.

I haven't seen Charlie Wilson's War, but our incursion back then shows that war is like trying to roll a football end to end-it's hard to do successfully and you often get unintended consequences. Who would have ever thought that a proxy war in one of the poorest countries in the world would directly result in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and possibly start the USA on the same downward spiral.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,050
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
"In 1989, when he lost the national election to Guillermo Endara, Noriega "nullified" the election and maintained power by force, making him severely unpopular among Panamanians. Bush called on Noriega to honor the will of the Panamanian people, and Noriega responded by publicly brutalizing Endara, who had rightfully won the election"

Perhaps that was the reason?
Along with the need to safe guard the Panama Canal?
We've supported tons of brutal, undemocratic regimes throughout the 20th century. We certainly did our part to prop Noriega up over the years, even with overwhelming evidence that he was dealing in weapons and drugs on a fairly large scale. I don't think it was anything other than furthering an imperialist / corporate agenda. Safe guard the Canal? It wasn't ours.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
"In 1989, when he lost the national election to Guillermo Endara, Noriega "nullified" the election and maintained power by force, making him severely unpopular among Panamanians. Bush called on Noriega to honor the will of the Panamanian people, and Noriega responded by publicly brutalizing Endara, who had rightfully won the election"

Perhaps that was the reason?
Along with the need to safe guard the Panama Canal?
We've supported tons of brutal, undemocratic regimes throughout the 20th century. We certainly did our part to prop Noriega up over the years, even with overwhelming evidence that he was dealing in weapons and drugs on a fairly large scale. I don't think it was anything other than furthering an imperialist / corporate agenda. Safe guard the Canal? It wasn't ours.
This is one reason why we cannot be a "world's police." We do the job hypocritically, with our own interests as a priority. We are seen not as heroes, but tyrants.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,512
139
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
"In 1989, when he lost the national election to Guillermo Endara, Noriega "nullified" the election and maintained power by force, making him severely unpopular among Panamanians. Bush called on Noriega to honor the will of the Panamanian people, and Noriega responded by publicly brutalizing Endara, who had rightfully won the election"

Perhaps that was the reason?
Along with the need to safe guard the Panama Canal?
We've supported tons of brutal, undemocratic regimes throughout the 20th century. We certainly did our part to prop Noriega up over the years, even with overwhelming evidence that he was dealing in weapons and drugs on a fairly large scale. I don't think it was anything other than furthering an imperialist / corporate agenda. Safe guard the Canal? It wasn't ours.
This is one reason why we cannot be a "world's police." We do the job hypocritically, with our own interests as a priority. We are seen not as heroes, but tyrants.
All nations make decisions in their own best interest. Same as individuals or families, corporations and so on. Their is nothing hypocritical about supporting one dictator and not another or one democracy and not another. What would be hypocritical is not doing those things necessary to advance our self interests.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
"In 1989, when he lost the national election to Guillermo Endara, Noriega "nullified" the election and maintained power by force, making him severely unpopular among Panamanians. Bush called on Noriega to honor the will of the Panamanian people, and Noriega responded by publicly brutalizing Endara, who had rightfully won the election"

Perhaps that was the reason?
Along with the need to safe guard the Panama Canal?
We've supported tons of brutal, undemocratic regimes throughout the 20th century. We certainly did our part to prop Noriega up over the years, even with overwhelming evidence that he was dealing in weapons and drugs on a fairly large scale. I don't think it was anything other than furthering an imperialist / corporate agenda. Safe guard the Canal? It wasn't ours.
This is one reason why we cannot be a "world's police." We do the job hypocritically, with our own interests as a priority. We are seen not as heroes, but tyrants.
All nations make decisions in their own best interest. Same as individuals or families, corporations and so on. Their is nothing hypocritical about supporting one dictator and not another or one democracy and not another. What would be hypocritical is not doing those things necessary to advance our self interests.
We don't need to be murderous tyrants to be prosperous.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,050
126
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Foxery
You forgot the part about how we meddle in other countries, and later change our minds and meddle in the opposite direction. The timing of the movie was appropriate in that the average American these days only knows of Afghanistan as the place we've bombed flat. The previous generation supported the country such that it could be a strong, independent nation in the first place - now we've gone back to ruin it. (Albeit under the pretense of fighting terror.)

The US also helped to overthrow several Latin/South American governments back in the 70s, and now the folks we put in power are considered evil dictators. Whee!
Heh, Manuel Noriega comes to mind. Of all the conspiracy theory talk, I'd have to point at that incident and say 'what's *really* goin on, guys? We sure as hell didn't invade Panama just to oust a Drug Dealer, considering Columbia produces many many times more drugs than Panama ever did. It's also somewhat suspicious that Noriega was a CIA asset during GHWB's CIA Director days.

The ends justify the means I suppose?
"In 1989, when he lost the national election to Guillermo Endara, Noriega "nullified" the election and maintained power by force, making him severely unpopular among Panamanians. Bush called on Noriega to honor the will of the Panamanian people, and Noriega responded by publicly brutalizing Endara, who had rightfully won the election"

Perhaps that was the reason?
Along with the need to safe guard the Panama Canal?
We've supported tons of brutal, undemocratic regimes throughout the 20th century. We certainly did our part to prop Noriega up over the years, even with overwhelming evidence that he was dealing in weapons and drugs on a fairly large scale. I don't think it was anything other than furthering an imperialist / corporate agenda. Safe guard the Canal? It wasn't ours.
This is one reason why we cannot be a "world's police." We do the job hypocritically, with our own interests as a priority. We are seen not as heroes, but tyrants.
All nations make decisions in their own best interest. Same as individuals or families, corporations and so on. Their is nothing hypocritical about supporting one dictator and not another or one democracy and not another. What would be hypocritical is not doing those things necessary to advance our self interests.
Wow, what a shockingly cynical reply. There has to be a balance between our own self interest, and the issues of global peace, humanity, and progress. There's an old saying, 'live by the sword ....'
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS