Apocalypto

fastpat · 10-01-2006, 05:55 PM

Mel Gibson's new movie, Apocalypto Interesting trailers, debuting December 8th, 2006. Gibson views the Bush'ist sending of young Americans to Iraq and Afghanistan as the beginning of human sacrifice, I'd say he's a bit late. One need only look at the death of western europe in World War One and Two to see that it's been going on a long time.

JavaBrewer · JavaBrewer's Garage

Pat, 99.1% of the time I don't agree with what you say. This thread is no different - actually I didn't even read what you posted. I enjoy the passion Mel put's into his films. Accuracy be damned, his flicks are good entertainment. Can't wait to see this movie.

tabs · 10-01-2006, 11:56 PM

In mid 1943 Keitle told Guderian that even without fighting any major battels Germany was losing 150,000 men a month and the most Gemany could replace was 75,000. The meaning was that it was only a matter of time before Germany ran out of manpower and thus lose WW2.

Hitler once told one of his aides that talking to his generals was depressing because all they wanted to do was take him aside and tell him the war was lost.

tabs · 10-02-2006, 12:18 AM

You want to have a Global Economy....you want your high tech toys, you want your sports cars, you want your house in the burbs, you want modern medicine, you want a MODERN LIFE. Well get used to having Americans die defending your privileges and that goes for Liberals as well as Conservatives.

There is no turning back, either we succeed or we all perish.

fastpat · 10-02-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
You want to have a Global Economy....you want your high tech toys, you want your sports cars, you want your house in the burbs, you want modern medicine, you want a MODERN LIFE. Well get used to having Americans die defending your privileges and that goes for Liberals as well as Conservatives.

There is no turning back, either we succeed or we all perish.

The only problem with y our thesis, Tabs, is that it's based on the lie that all wars entered into and fought by the US government were required.

The actual fact is that almost none were required or necessary. The last time warfare was entered into in defense of America was the War of 1812.

Moneyguy1 · 10-02-2006, 06:19 PM

Gee tabs..

I would be willing to sacrifice some of the things that make for "the good life" for a bit of global tranquility.

Your insight is based on unapprovable assumptions that war is necessary to preserve peace. A bit Orwellian, dontcha think?

on-ramp · 06:37 PM

who was it that said..

there are no war-like people, only war-like leaders.

on-ramp · 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
You want to have a Global Economy....you want your high tech toys, you want your sports cars, you want your house in the burbs, you want modern medicine, you want a MODERN LIFE. Well get used to having Americans die defending your privileges and that goes for Liberals as well as Conservatives.

There is no turning back, either we succeed or we all perish.

how are US soldiers in Iraq defending my right to drive my 911?

has Iraq ever threatened our way of life? I don't think so.

It's the other way around, the Iraqi people are victims of Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of their homeland. 50,000+ Dead!

btw, how do you define "succeed". kill all the "terrorists" ? there will always be terrorism in the world....

tabs · 10-04-2006, 03:47 AM

If America pulls out of Iraq with anything less than a Stable government (which could include a Strongman in power) in place, Iraq Could descend into sectarian Civil War. Which Could spread beyond her borders and engulf the entire region in war. If the entire region is at war the price of a barrel of oil will jump...how high U say...$150 to $200 a barrel. What then happens to the World economy, let alone the US economy? A SEVERE DEPRESSION results which makes the Great Depression of the 1930s look like prosperity.

EVEN if Iraq does not fall into CW, Iraq will at the very least will fall into the orbit of Iran. Which in of itself will destablize the region with resulting volitility in the price of a barrel of oil...

Its a lose lose situation all around...and like Kissengers says the only solution is victory in Iraq, the stakes are MUCH higher than it was in Vietnam. America is basically "all in" on Iraq.

Flatbutt1 · 10-04-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
the only solution is victory in Iraq, the stakes are MUCH higher than it was in Vietnam. America is basically "all in" on Iraq.

What would that victory look like? A stable gov't? What if the only stable gov't in Iraq is a sectarian Muslim gov't? Is that a victory for the US?

songhoh · 10-04-2006, 04:40 PM

Is the US government really fighting this war to win? You know we could win this pretty quickly if the American civilian population could take it. And that's first hand experience.

fastpat · 10-04-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by songhoh
Is the US government really fighting this war to win? You know we could win this pretty quickly if the American civilian population could take it. And that's first hand experience.

If you are speaking of the War Against Iraq, there is no known method of winning that war. The same applies to Afghanistan.