Box Office Guru Wrapup: SEALs Storm Into #1 Spot with Valor

dethburger hates Flixster

I dunno, under which Presidency 'succeeded' in hunting down Bin Laden who was America's most wanted 'dead and alive' and finally return troops home back to their families and friends!

Feb 27 - 03:28 PM

How is Obama even in the same failure BALLPARK as Bush?

Bush threw the ENTIRE WORLD into a recession.

Obama has givin the US 3 straight years of economic GROWTH!

Look...http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/bush-vs-obama-on-spending-its-no.html

Feb 28 - 09:25 AM

Seems like if it was propoganda it'd be better right? Is a movie really propoganda if it doesn't make what it's promoting look good? Just a philosophical question there. I DO find it interesting (not aimed at you in particular, just making a general point) that the first people to bash on this kind of right wing propoganda are usually the first to praise left wing propoganda that is very prevalent in Hollywood as well. This is the real problem we have in America, we've allowed the media and our politicians to comfortably file us into rival armed camps Coastals and Flyover States, Red and Blue, Occupiers and Tea Partiers, Left and Right, Etc and Etc. Everybody who doesn't agree with us is an asshole, except we're all assholes because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted from the real problem that all our govt officials are more interested in getting themselves re-elected by dividing us than actually doing a good job and being competent.

Feb 27 - 06:16 AM

scifi mark

I couldn't agree with you more. I would never see this in a theater but ill definitely be watching it on video when it comes out. For me i would be curious to see actual real military tactics that the seals would use. But that is just my own justification for seeing it.

Also statistically only 20 percent of the people in the US will actually vote for who they think is the best candidate and not on party lines.

Feb 27 - 07:45 AM

Right, I never thought this was going to be Oscar worthy on an acting level. I'd probably equate this closer to The Expendables in terms of expectation for me. The draw is the realism of the action, not the quality of the acting. I would agree though this probably could have been more effective as a documentary on the SEALs than a fictional work. PS Lenny, since they're Navy SEALs they're not Soldiers, they're Sailor's. Just a minor correction.

Feb 27 - 07:59 AM

The lack of story, which even "Act"s fans aren't denying, is what offends me most. And I hate political sanctimony regardless of which side of the partisan fence it comes from. But if Rick Santorum gets the nomination, will we still be talking with a straight face about all this "best candidate" nonsense?

Feb 27 - 01:12 PM

Rick Santorum is a right wing Christian racist- this is the guy that wants to bring back old fashion Christian values and if that is the case then he should throw away all his apple products as well as everything else that he has anything to do with technology since times have changed! He's probably pro-slavory too since that is the time when females have to hold an asprin between their knees and that men are the only breadwinners with women having to stay at home and do f-ck all except clean house which also means that he doesn't even believe in equal rights! 'Perfect' white collar families make me sick to my stomach and standing beside him underpaid ethnic butlers and maids who barely speak any English working on the side!

Feb 27 - 03:56 PM

Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely. Janson, I think thr belief that in a system where you have to be a multi millionaire and have the backing of hundreds of corporate sponsors and special interest groups precludes the idea that we're going to get the best candidate on either side. Obama won because we knew less about him than anyone else going and that played to his benefit in that election. It kills me that after 11 years of war we don't have any candidates with competent military experience. Say what you want, but senators, governors, etc nothing compares with being a general or leader during time of war for prepping you to make hard decisions. Where are the Eisenhowers and Kennedy's of this generation?

Feb 27 - 04:55 PM

BB - I hope you will support with me a constitutional amendment that will over turn 'Citizens United', declare that corporations are not people (only people are people), and establish publicly funded elections in order to put an end to the need to cater to these financial and industrial interests in the first place. And Obama has made some hard decisions concerning the failed Afghanistan 'surge' and the expansion of the illicit drone program. Pentagon funding has actually increased in every one of his budgets (so far). I'm obviously not one who supports these things, but, objectively, it's kinda kooky to accuse Obama of not being hawkish on his foreign policy.

Feb 27 - 06:22 PM

I definately would agree to all of that. I'm not accusing the President of anything of the sort and I have the utmost respect for the office of the President. No one has to make harder decisions, I was just saying that nothing can prepare you for the office of the President like military service and leading fighting men in life and death situations. I also don't think being a military veteran necessarily makes you by nature hawkish. I actually think most wars in American history began under Presidents with no military service and the two guys I mentioned though having proud records of military service were not people that went out looking for a fight and made some of the best decisions that kept the Cold War cold. I think people with combat experience understand the stakes in such things in a way that civilians can't and their military records demand instant respect from other world leaders as someone who will make the hard decisions if pushed. Not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously there are great Presidents who never served in the military Lincoln and FDR spring to mind immediately, but I still think it helps. Really Grant is the only bad President I can think of with a military background. I just find it odd that we're now on our 3rd President in a row with no military service and 5 of the last 6. 11 years of war and not one viable candidate? Just strikes me as and anomoly.

Feb 27 - 07:10 PM

Just to let you know, I supported Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004. He's exactly the kind of military dove you mentioned. His book "Winning Modern Wars" exposed exactly the kind of considerations that W ignored.

Feb 27 - 07:24 PM

In hindsight Clark would have been good. Also, I wish Colin Powell could pull his balls out of his wifes purse and run I think he would have been a phenomenal President.

Feb 27 - 07:32 PM

George Patchell

I'm living in Australia so I don't really have a horse in this race - though I am thinking of moving to the states in about a year - but to me it seems like would you really want a general or military leader running a country during a time of war? How could they address each situation objectively? Its like how a lawyer should not handle their own personal cases because they are too close to it to see things objectively. You need someone who can stand back away from the situation. Anyway as I said im in Australia and I don't have a firm handle on American politics as I'm sure most Americans wouldn't know much about Australian politics. As for the movie if it ever gets to our screens given our terrible release schedule - 50/50 only comes out at cinemas this week! - then I think its one to avoid at all costs. When people say its the most realistic war (or whatever) film ever made it almost guarantees that it isn't and given the reviews and bad word of mouth on this site I think I'll steer clear. As for those mentioning Safe House I'd recommend you avoid it - yeah we get that same time as the states but you try catching Shame a week after it gets released and nope its already off the screens - and it was nothing great just another action movie with a twist visible from the beginning and a disappointing ending. Might check out The Artist this week as it was just released a week and a half ago but knowing my luck its already been removed to make way for The Vow or something else equally terrible.

Feb 28 - 12:58 AM

I'd say you want a general because for one they've already had to make those decisions and have a better understanding of the intricasies and consequences of said decisions. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best example of the type of leadership you get from someone with military experience. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. You shouldn't actively seek out conflict like W did in Iraq, but you also can't let people think you're afraid to act so they believe they can dick you around for a decade like Saddam Hussein did after the first Gulf War because he figured out that the international community wasn't going to do anything about it...See also Kim Jung Il, Asad and any number of various warlords in Africa these days. Tough luck on the movie front dude, but hey at least you're in Australia which I've always enjoyed if you can avoid the brown recluses and salt water crocks. Best ladies in the world in Australia.

Feb 28 - 07:37 AM

"Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely" Understand something here Bigbrother, "propoganda" is manipulation and if you don't want to subject to any of what you perceive as "propoganda" then you might as well just turn your tv off and then hand them all your money, because all I'm doing is "quoting" some of what "one" Republican candidate is saying about going back to old fashion Christian values, in this case it happens to be Rick Santorum! People want more employment but how is that going to happen because you can't just take someone's word for "it" and then the jobs would just reappear out of nowhere, the bad economy was a result of Republicans and as always blame Democrats as an excused to wreck the economy even more- it's not so hard to understand this!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Obama consults with his "Minister of Defense" as well as his generals, I mean that's how they got Bin Laden, wasn't it! And Bush went to war with Iraq for the oil which is what W's business friends wanted him to do in the first place who contributed most amount of money for him to win his second term. And the reason why no President won't invade any country including similar to North Korea is because there's no financial gain in terms of it's resources to help the US economy unless they were to attack first of course!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

If everything you say about Santorum were true and as clear cut as you present it he wouldn't be a public figure unless you believe a majority of the voting public supports those ideas which I don't. You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda. Getting Bin Laden wasn't as simple as consulting with his generals and cabinet. Actually much to his great credit the President didn't listen to the advise of his cabinet when taking the chance to get Bin Laden. My issue with the Presidents military policy is twofold 1. He praises the military and touts their accomplishments for what they've done and sacrificed for him while cutting military jobs at senior levels and appointing Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter.

Feb 28 - 02:36 PM

There's also a problem that never seems to come up with the we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil theory. 1. Afghans have no oil and 2. We haven't taken cheap barrel of oil one from Iraq. That's why our gas is pushing 4 bucks a barrel up from just north of two when we went in.

Feb 28 - 02:49 PM

You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda" Well, you got a point there bigbrother and it'd be idiotic if they really did say those things, but I remember on some MAD magazines or another they would sometimes have politicians and CEO's saying one thing only to really mean something else, so in this retropects it's a matter of "semantics" or how each individual interprets it, but to avoid propoganda any shape or form in it's entirety one would have to lock yourself in a closet and hope that you can converse with the candidates themeselves providing that you're allowed to ask the hard questions because they tend to avoid that! And you may not view it as no big deal whenever a candidate says that he wants to go 'back to old Christian values' but what do they really mean by that because racism was more acceptable during those times too, including the fact that the 1% of the wealthiest citizens of America used to be and still is white which is what happend back on those days when we had nothing but Christian values!

Feb 28 - 03:48 PM

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I agree there was no oil in Afganistan, but to execute Osama Bin Laden was the main objective to invade Afganistan in the first place, but as I recall Bush's original agenda was to send troops to Iraq for the oil despite 9/11 happened even though 1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever 2) Saddam Hussein had no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and knew this, meaning that the reason why Bush invaded Iraq was basically for the oil instructed by his CEO friends! There's absolutely no other reason to invade Iraq other than that reason was for the oil! I also want to add that North Korea is becoming an impoverished nation and I don't think it can maintain a powerful army long unless the sanctions are lifted!

"Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter."

And I don't know too much about this for this could be labelled as propoganda as well since the troops themselves haven't said anything when a portion of our troops were always relying on "contributions" funded by other people. I mean would you rather have them go back to war, is war better that can possibly wreck a man's mentality and go into deep depression, I want to understand this bigbrother!

Feb 28 - 03:49 PM

Let me just say about Santorum: His own comments about sex not being for pleasure, and how birth control has resulted in more out-of-wedlock births, or how he has supported limiting birth control to married couples, or how he has publicly defended both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno, or how his reaction to his fellow Catholic Kennedy's speech on religious tolerance made him almost puke, or how rape babies are gifts from God, ad nauseum - all that is what it is. I won't judge him, but I will say that if you think he's going to be the nominee and you think he's going to run for president in the 21st century on these issues (and he's also been very clear on imposing "God's law" on all American's despite the 1st amendment and Jefferson's wish to protect those "of any faith or no faith", then all I'll say is "Good Luck with that!"

Feb 28 - 04:13 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive and I'm not advocating maintaining wars just so our troops can have something to do, I simply question the logic of cutting our military forces back to below pre-war levels when those forces were proven to be wholy inadequate to the task when conflict actually came. People may not remember, but when the initial conflicts kicked off in 2001 and 2003 the same units were constantly deploying over and over again which probably did much of the psychological damage you reference, now ten years on we've finally gotten some kind of handle on it and we want to cut back so if something does happen in Iran, syria or North Korea we'll face the same situation we did when we started. Also I've seen first hand measures the secdef and administration has implemented to cut the force without making it look like they're cutting forces and the people who are getting cut out and forced to leave are those same people who were eating the repeat deployments all those years ago, they're reward? getting told their service is no longer required and they're not allowed to make their 20 and collect thier retirement pension because they're less important than the blatant bureaucracy and tons of waste that fuels our govt. If you've ever worked with people prosecuting the wars they're not saying we need more equipment or we need to develop these great billion dollar high tech tools, they say we need more people and the reason you don't hear about it from service members is very simple. Members of the armed forces are not allowed to use their positions as members of such to get involved in politics or desperage their Commander in Chief or high ranking members of the govt. Essentially they're forbidden by law from complaining as members of the military. It's why General McChrystal was asked to resign based on a Rolling Stone article where he and his staff spoke ill of how the administration was processing the war.

Feb 28 - 06:13 PM

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive" I was talking about fundraisers to help troops financially mostly for the ones who were disabled as a result of the war. Similar to how politicians raise money to win there campaigns and nominations!

Feb 29 - 01:37 PM

Well, in my defense, I haven't been reading articles from Rolling Stones for awhile now, but was wondering how old is this article and on what administration was he criticizing, was it "just" the current President or does this include the previous one, and I just want to say how convenient it is that complaints regarding the military is coming out in full circle once Obama came into Presidency but nothing was said when Bush was in office- how convenient! And also wondering whether this was the same General who said he wouldn't serve under the Obama administration because he didn't think he was an American and wanted him to produce a birth certificate, just wondering!

Feb 29 - 01:45 PM

Come to think of it for it's been a very long time, the general that's arising issues regarding the military in the Rolling Stones magazine, wasn't he the same general that had some animosity toward Obama after replacing him with another certified general and now he's an ex-general, just wondering because maybe the complaints and accusations that were made might be for personal reasons rather than being a noble one!

Feb 29 - 05:00 PM

Chris Liu

Since you brought up philosophy, I must point out that the claim �??this film is bad�?? does not follow from the claim �??this film is propaganda.�?? Clear case in point is Triumph of the Will. I�??m sure that Act of Valour has plenty of legitimate reasons for meriting criticism, but being propaganda is not one of them.

Feb 29 - 09:24 PM

Chad W

It's always interesting to read outsiders points of views on the military and how they would run it. Nevertheless, the back and forth banter here was fun to read. lol.

Mar 2 - 12:31 PM

On the flip side of things that by paying money to see this is a support of the Marines, even though they're not the same Marines that did Bin Laden they're still ex-Marines trying their chops at acting even though the film itself is in no way indeed memorable! I'll probably see this too some day when I'm at home with my "fast-forward" remote on my other hand!

Also, although you saw the film and I haven't, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree about the recruitment thing since to become a Marine has different standards than becoming a soldier, you can say that it may be a ploy to convince recruitment within the army but to become a Marine is actually harder than it looks because it's only a select "few" that can succeed to become one out of hundreds, perhaps thousands!

Feb 27 - 01:23 PM

Bradly Martin

Are you sure? I thought the marines took absolutely anybody that enlisted, weather or not they survived bootcamp is a different story of course.

Feb 27 - 03:50 PM

After the killing of Bin Laden, there was a couple of segments about them on "60 Minuutes" and on "Nightline" showcasing Marines and I think upon watching it, if the training had any limits with any of the men which could be sky diving or staying underwater for a specific amount of time can rule them out of the group forcing them to resort to the army instead, I could be wrong! The training of Marines is never the same as army men in uniform, never is never was! I think when people try out to be a Marine and at the same token doesn't mean that they would actually make it out as one either!

Feb 27 - 04:06 PM

They're not Marines. They're SEALs, Navy SEALs. So this entire thread is pointless. SEALs have to go through excruciating tests and trials to become SEALs. That was one thing GI Jane got right, the failure rate.

Feb 27 - 04:44 PM

Oops, you're right it is the SEALS, but I think I got confused was because they used ex-marines to star in this movie vehicle portraying as SEALS and the fact that they're so many "war" games to play, such as SOCOM, Medal Of Honor and Call Of Duty, it's sometimes kinda hard to keep things in check!

Feb 28 - 12:20 PM

Otoniel Gonzalez

the movie is LOUD so I wonder how you manage to fall asleep! I agree tho the movie SUCKED BALLS .

Feb 28 - 06:20 AM

Christopher Granado

safe house had denzel wahinhgton in it, act of valor non actors.

Feb 28 - 02:37 PM

Chad W

Haven't seen the movie yet, but just wanted to say that we're Sailors, not Soldiers.

Mar 2 - 12:26 PM

But are you the muthafucking SHORE PATROL!

Mar 2 - 04:44 PM

jessica Smith

++++++My friends told me about---casualchats.com---. They told me it is the best place to seek casual fun and short-term relationship. I have tried. It is fantastic! Tens of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys are active there. You wanna get laid tonight? Come in and give it a shot, you will find someone you like there. Have fun!:D

Mar 3 - 06:31 AM

Adam Jones

I'm really surprised that Act of Valor won the weekend and made as much money as it did. I guess the Navy Seals gimmick/Call of Duty action really appealed to men (although not to me, although I'm not a Caucasian). I wonder how many military families watched this film?

Good Deeds was a fairly poor opening for Mr. Perry. It is a shame that his most finacially sucessful movies feature that stupid Madea character, but his other movies aren't that much better.

I'm not surprised that Gone bombed considering how popular the Vow and This Means War continue to be with young women, but I am surprised at how much Wanderlust bombed. I guess audiences simply had no interest. Very happy Arietty held well in it's second weekend. So sad that it won't be a big money maker but anime will always have trouble in the mainstream market that Studio Ghibli aims for (well obviously except for Japan).

Also one notice for the Best Picture nominee the Artist. I loved the film but it has almost no mainstream appeal with the typical American audiences so I while I think it may reach $40 million thanks to the award wins and still expanding in theaters, it won't go beyond that.

Feb 26 - 09:03 PM

brandon sideleau

'Act of Valor' is #1? Why am I not surprised? Shove any jingoistic nonsense down the throat of the masses and they will gobble it up like good little sheep. I hate to be cynical...but just watching the previews for this garbage made me wince. Regardless of one's political views, propaganda can at least be done professionally...these guys sound like failed middle-school theater students when they open their mouths. The summer can't come soon enough...Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises will deliver the goods.

Feb 27 - 04:53 AM

Jimmy Gee

The releases are starting to get crappy now. Good thing we had The Grey, Chronicle, and a few other half decent films in February. I don't hold out any hope for John Carter or Wrath of the Titans or any of these Summer blockbuster wannabes...We will have to wait until summer probably when Avengers and Dark Knight and others open up. Welcome to the cinematic wasteland!

Feb 27 - 07:02 AM

King Simba

I don't know. This March looks pretty eventful compared to most. Granted, I'm not holding my breath for Mirror, Mirror or Wrath of the Titans, but Hunger Games looks really promising and early screenings for John Carter say it's a pretty good film (not surprising considering it's from Andew Stanton) while The Lorax might be good (I thought Horton was pretty solid. Unlike The Grinch or The Cat in the Hat it managed to adapt the book in a way that didn't feel padded out)

April looks pretty dead though, with the only thing I'm looking forward to being the Titanic re-release (Yes, I love Titanic. There, I said it!)

Feb 27 - 09:25 AM

Jimmy Gee

Yeah, I meant to mention Lorax. I think it might be pretty good. I want to really like Hunger Games although it feels like a kiddish movie (Though I'm sure much better than Twilight, but probably not as good as the latest Harry Potters).

Feb 27 - 11:33 AM

King Simba

From what I've heard from early screenings, Hunger Games is far from kidish, with some scenes that realy push the PG-13 rating.

Feb 27 - 12:54 PM

John Noto

Saw a Hunger Games preview on the NBA all star game. I have no prior knowledge except that it's indeed based on a book, but it looked stupid and ridiculous on a Battlefield earth scale. Maybe it was just the dude's insane beard, but there were literally no redeeming features in the trailer.

Feb 27 - 02:44 PM

King Simba

Looks like all that advertising paid off for Act of Valor. The lack of such advertising explains the performance of Wanderlust. Seriously, for a film starring Jennifer Aniston, who's coming off of two blockbuster hits, you'd think the studio would put more of an effort behind selling this film, especially after they saw how huge The Vow was.

On, a side note what's with the overenlarged photo for Act of Valor, or is it just my computer? Would have loved it if they had done something similair with other number one films (namely that Breaking Dawn photo)

Feb 27 - 09:17 AM

I had no problem seeing "Wanderlust" ads, but since I like a lot of late night comedy, that's probably the market they were aiming at.

Feb 27 - 01:07 PM

Chase Lehocky

I actually enjoyed Act of Valor for what is was, yes the acting wasn't good but what do you except? Maybe because I am in the military, I enjoy these kind of movies. This is way more real then most war movies out there.

Feb 27 - 10:31 AM

JC Martel

I'm just pumped that Star Wars is in 12th place. Tremendous job movie audiences!

Feb 27 - 12:21 PM

Just a note. Rather than make a joke about white men and guns, can I just implore people to stop flagging comments as spam just because you don't happen to agree with them? You know who you are, be an adult and respond if you disagree, but don't just cowardly flag spam on everything you don't like. (Go ahead and flag this, you punks! I can already see them fingers getting itchy!)

Feb 27 - 01:25 PM

I knew it. Just couldn't help yourselves, bitches!

Feb 27 - 06:26 PM

Julian Nunez

Act of Valor looked terrible.I mean i support the them and all, but seriously it looked bad. Also how the hell does A Tyler Perry movie open second place when there was literally no sign of this movies existence?

Feb 27 - 02:29 PM

Strange day. A miraculous screener for "Act of Valor" managed to find it's way to a friend's house this afternoon, so I brought the Devilish Commie Brew and attempted to let the Eagle soar. What I saw was worse than I could have imagined. Unfortunately, the types of gun-ho children the film is aimed at (and don't let the 'R' fool you - this is straight Yo!Joe territory) do not have the education to discern exactly why the slogan "A Country of Will" happens to mirror the German SS, much less the ideological inclination of why a 'war of will' is a poisonous affair. These are all muddy waters following our collective refusal to admit guilt or regret for the blatantly immoral (and illegal, more illegal than, say, immigrants) Iraqi invasion. Might makes right, and as long as American Might is immune from international war crimes, we call it 'exceptionalism' - Justice, except just US. No wonder so many young boys raised on Spike and Bush don't recognize the cowardice of this moral relativism. They've learned acutely that justice is just what you can get away with, W's lasting impact on society, like in Stone's movie - believing the ball will never have to fall. The audience this film is designed for will probably also fail to recognize the resemblence of the ice-cream terrorists with the other shadowy villains throughout history, like Shylock, Fagan, and Jud Suss. I wonder how many of them would even recognize the name Goebbles much less understand how subversively these images are meant to train the mind to hate. Yes, this kind of propaganda is alive and well in the Muslim world, and the Maoist world, etc. We were supposed to be better, a notion that is increasingly obscure. Knowing used to be half the battle. Now intellectuals are among the untrustworthy.

Feb 27 - 06:47 PM

Sad to hear its not good, but I got the feeling subconciously that it would be. I had a lot of aquaintances and friends who liked the idea, but for some reason I couldn't get excited for it. Decided to go see Safe house instead. Glad I did now. Were the action scenes at least authentic? If not, I'll probably never see it, that's the only thing that could make me curious enough to watch it in the future, usually when I lose interest like this, I never see them.

Feb 27 - 07:42 PM

It's a perfectly servicable action film, kinetically exciting for the eyes, ears and gut, but with absolutely nothing offered to engage the brain, which is why I found myself dwelling on those kinds of issues above in the vacuum. For whatever reason, I found more "Expendables" more entertaining, but, who knows?, I actually liked the last "Rambo" better than either.

Feb 28 - 11:08 AM

Duane Ullery

But what do you REALLY think Janson? ;) All joking aside, very well said. And, hey, good news for the propaganda machine! Now we have an entirely DIFFERENT nation against which to begin pounding the drums of war . As tensions with the Iranian government ( I said government.Not the people. The people seem to be truly decent folks) tighten and develop an even sharper edge over the ensuing months, expect the international narcissism of the United States government to prevail as they work overtime to spin a web of misinformation painting everything even remotely associated with Iran as the machinations of evil incarnate. The problem this time is the very real threat that this could easily spill over into a larger conflict with the eventual involvement of Israel being almost a given. But no matter- as long as there exists in this country an able bodied generation susceptible to this thinly veiled modern reworking of Manifest Destiny our government is programming them with ("Remember kids, vote for your favorite on Idol... and then join the army to be a real idol to millions!! Seacrest Out " It's only a matter of time. I just know it ) , there will be a force available to march to the beat of their war. Only this time, it eventually ends with a nuclear cloud giving the soil a healthy, green glow while any surviving vegetation has a half life of ten thousand years, because this particular foreign theocracy actually IS insane and they don't tend to f**k around. My hope is that the hell fire doesn't start blasting cities into pixie dust until after I have an opportunity to see Prometheus. I've waited too long for that movie to have the experience usurped by a nuclear holocaust, damn it.

Feb 28 - 12:12 AM

The problem with Iran IS their nuclear capabilities. Coupled with their violent rhetoric towards Israel this makes them a plausible threat to the region and eventually us. But I don't think war with them will happen anytime soon. It's like war with North Korea, it's just too costly. Plus Russia and China are bed buddies with Iran throwing another wrench in the equation. But Iraq and Afghanistan were easy targets with (what we thought at least) little resistance. We'll sanction them to death like North Korea, which only hurts its people. That situation is going to bad for a long time, which is how that region has been for a long, long time.

Feb 28 - 10:24 AM

While I don't believe for a second that a weapon isn't what Iran is striving for, I find it hard to believe that they aren't doing it for defensive purposes precisely because they saw what happened to their nuke-free neighbors. I've seen anaysis from people with more experience and knowledge than me who don't see why they would spend so much investment in aquiring a bomb only to blow their wad guaranteeing decimation with the inevitable retaliation. The more immediate danger is an arms escalation in the region, as we'll see stockpiles grow in Israel, India, and Pakistan, and perhaps a couple other states who will also be pursuing their own weapons programs. Neither Israel nor India have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they are not committed to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Plus Russia and China are developing an Asian alternative to NATO in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Iran is enthusiastic to join, which is why those countries are more willing to side with them in the long-term gameplan to remove US troops from the continent. In short, foreign policy matters are never discussed in the American corporate media adequetely enough to give most people a clear perspective on what's actually going on.

Feb 28 - 11:58 AM

I don't think they would launch an ICBM with "To the heathens, with love. Sincerely, Iran" written on it but I do think they would sell or trade radioactive materials to radical religious groups. Thats what scares me. Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that he would like to see Israel destroyed and the Russian and Chinese governments have shown little to no compassion for the senseless killing of millions of people. Either way, its hard not to see why they would have an issue with foreigners telling them what they can and can't do. How would we feel?

Feb 28 - 02:00 PM

infernaldude You made some good points about the relationships between Russia and China and Iran! However, Russia and China has more to gain from the US and perhaps Canada than they do with Iran because we're labelled as civilized countries and has helped produce a lot of jobs down there, including the making of Apple products! Therefore, if any extremists were to happen against Israel may dampen the overall effect amongst civilized countries meaning that no country would want to do business with China or even Russia if they're not doing their part to maintain Iran's nuclear facility!

Feb 28 - 04:01 PM

Dave-I know what you're saying, but China and Russia are already allies with Iran. They trade oil, etc. No surprise seeing as they're right next to each other. At this point you're right though. The U.S., Russia and China are linked economically, however, as those two countries advance their quality of living, and more importantly, their military they may not need us as much as they used too. Additionally, we've always had a strained political relation with them and, IMO, when the shyt hits the fan, I don't think they will side with us. One more thing, Putin scares me. You don't just forget about being a KGB agent.

Feb 28 - 06:28 PM

Well, Putin was an ex-KGB agent, but war in itself is very costly and most countries would go to war against Iran if they were to start anything- it may even hurt there economy. And I also think they're more countries side with us than on the side of Iran! And if war really did happen, exchanging resources with China and Russia be very difficult to maintain, forcing restrictions and quotas! Also add that we wouldn't have known about Iran's nuclear facility if the UN didn't have some access going over there too and as I recall, Russia doesn't really have a well functioned army yet, and the actions of the gov'ts of China don't refect the overall public perception of China, remember the protests at Tiananmen Square!

Feb 29 - 03:22 PM

My second issue is negotiations with the Taliban. The US government does not negotiate with Terrorists that is a tried and proven policy and I don't see why it should be abandoned in the interest of expediency in an election year. For me the President in movie terms is like a Star Wars prequel he isn't out and out bad, but he promised the world and ended up being unable to deliver it. A disappointment rather than a failure.

Feb 28 - 02:41 PM

Talks with the Taliban started under Robert Gates. I urge you to read this in order to get an understanding of the situation.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

and more extensively:

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf

(The link is via Rolling Stone magazine, and don't bother asking why they're the only ones covering these things, but it's the official Pentagon report written by the same Lt Colonial Daniel Davis as the above article.)

Feb 28 - 04:06 PM

I gotta say man, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan to many of the area's this guy is talking about admittedly at different times and I gotta say the images Petreaus was reporting jive better with my recollections than the LTC's do. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't all roses and sunshine, but I'd hardly say the senior leadership was blatantly misleading their govt of the situation either or that the Taliban controlled every area of afghanistan outside the site of US bases. When I was last there in 2008 there were maybe half a dozen area's where we where hesitant to go. and those mainly consisted of Mt. passes and valleys that were under taliban control and those were frequently getting busted up by SF. It's true you'd find a lot of talibani and insurgents moving around in 1's and 2's, but unless you're willing to wipe out everyone who doesn't look American you're going to get those. The LTC's experience could have simply been different than mine, just saying that his views don't reflect what I saw and his conclusions would not necessarily have been the ones I would draw.

Feb 28 - 07:16 PM

I respect your personal experience, but what Lt. Col. Davis reports is very difficult to dismiss. I think the talks with the Taliban came out of a recognition that we can't stay, and things aren't getting better.

Feb 28 - 09:15 PM

Absolutely right, and I'm not trying to dismiss him. I think it's great that right or wrong he cared enough to go to this much obvious effort to rectify what he perceives as the problem. On the other hand when you've seen as many misguided Majors and LTC's as I have you learn not to take their personal opinions and conclusions as gospel necessarily.

Feb 29 - 06:59 AM

If you mean the President that we have right now, he's unable to deliver what he said he'd do was soley because his opposition party objects to every positive proposal if it benefits the country! Bainer (a CEO of his own right) won forcing Nancy Pelosi to step down, a President can never get anything done this way!

Feb 28 - 05:57 PM

Yeah, cause virtually every president who ever had to deal with an opposition house or senate didn't have to deal with the same thing? The democrats had carte blanche after the Bush years to execute their agenda. They had a majority in both houses, a Super majority for a bit and they accomplished very little. Bush tried to use the same excuses and I didn't buy it then either. If you're a real leader you make it work. For his personal flaws Clinton did a masterful job of that with a much more hostile and competently confrontational opposition.

Feb 28 - 06:41 PM

Competency of the opposition aside, Clinton never faced the number of filibusters that Obama has. Check the numbers between presidential appointments. Obama's were filibustered on GP. You never had the opposition say that their number one priority was defeating the president's re-election. There really is no precedent for this opposition and many longtime journos know this. But the Dems in Congress are just sitting on their thumbs. The pictures of Weiner playing with himself in the Capital gym are the perfect epitome.

Feb 28 - 06:59 PM

Filibuster wouldn't have worked when the Democrats had a super majority though. I also credit Clinton having less filibusters due to his ability as a diplomat. Gingrich and his lot hated Clinton, but they saw the sense of his efforts and he didn't put so much focus on fights he wasn't going to win. People have forgotten in Congress that there is a middle ground full of solvable problems, but instead of working on those they spend every day arguing and filibustering hot button issue's that they are 180 degree's apart on.

Feb 28 - 08:11 PM

As I recall, one of the first things Obama wanted to do was reduce the huge 'deficit' by taxing the wealthy elite more since they make ten times more money than the average American does, but Bainer and his Tea Party party didn't want to agree on taxing the rich because much or most of the Republican party's campaign contributions came from them anyway, and then creating a false hysteria that by taxing them more would mean that they would provide less jobs without any proof about how they're going to create any or whether or not they will, if the gov'ts did leave them alone! Even though they can afford to donate more money to their favorite nominees in comparison to any average working Joes out there, I suspect that as a result of the wealthy elite's extra gross earnings don't go to creating more jobs at all but goes to their favorite candidates who're running which is why there are no jobs created, almost seems like total hypocrisy!

Mar 2 - 11:49 AM

Chad W

When the rich pay 72% more in taxes than the rest of the country, when do you say enough is enough? When does someone that works their way up the food chain qualify to others that they make too much money and should have to pay an extra penalty, when they already do? Progressive tax systems like the one we have cater to the welfare and lazy asses, wherein 46% of Americans don't even pay a cent in tax a year, because they either make not enough or get so many tax credits for pumping out welfare babies that they make money from the government at tax time (by not even paying into the system). The wealthy get screwed thru and thru.

Mar 2 - 12:59 PM

@rle4lunch, first of all, welfare has nothing to do with 'underpaid' work, period, since the middle class paid most of the taxes, when on some very high class restaurants, waitresses still have to rely on tips to get by with their measly 5 dollars an hour when at the same time the CEOs who own some of those restaurants get there millions! Second, you're totally off and incorrect about the 72% increase because the last time Obama was at his Presidential speech he said the wealthy should pay there fair share of 30% which is what the "middle class" were always paying in which the wealthy hardly had to pay anything at all when Bush was in office, and even by paying there fair share of 30% like the rest of us working Joes they still would have a lot of money left over in there pockets. And by arguing on the side of the rich, must mean that you also condone the exploitation of workers which is paying less when they need more. Chinese people get paid 1.25 an hour for building Apple products and some have commited suicide as a result(Nightline, ABC), so explain to me how anyone make a living with that kind of wage when they also have to pay food, bills and rent? Why don't you try to "make" a living out of the wages they they get on Wal-Mart!

Mar 2 - 03:41 PM

@rle4lunch - "food chain"? So we're cannibals now? You post isn't really worth responding to, but I did get a kick out of that. It says exactly what century you're coming from.

Mar 2 - 04:49 PM

Big Brother- You better be careful man. I'm pretty sure that comparing the President to the Star Wars prequels will get the Secret Service at your doorstep. Just, FYI.

Feb 28 - 06:21 PM

Let'em come, those guys are pansies. They don't want me to break out the pig.

Feb 29 - 07:19 AM

Florence Bitner

You guys are a bunch of pansies and I am willing to bet the majority of you that thought this movie was as Lenny M. commented on 2/26/2012 at 7:11 PM are Dem's with who think OBAMA walks on water!!

Feb 28 - 09:09 PM