Black Hawk Down. Anyone seen it yet?

Ahh, mucho gracias Brad. Im heading there now.

Take care--C.

 

Well I'm With U in This Point ,lot of Complications Occured in That Supposed 2 be Short Mission!! .The Skinies Were Ready 2 Ambush US Rangers ,Whom Stuck in a Complex Situation (I Know That They never Meant 2 Shoot Civilians ,But Moghadisho is a Crowdy City) ,but There R Some Unbelievabel Scenes in "Black Hawk Down" Where U See Armed Skinies Walk in Demostrarions With Women & kids !! Well I Don't think That this Happened!! ,but I think That They Were Firing From Areas Surrounded By Civils!!! and This Bad & Some kind Of Using Them as Human Shields!

 

You gotta remember that the movie was just that, a movie. In case your not used to the hollywoodland gutter trash thats made and shoved down our throats, this means that they (the hollywood wierdos) take liberties when they deem it necessary-therefore, some stuff shown--never happened. Now as to whether or not during the real incidents-whether there were armed thugs mixed in with the civvies or not? I can't factually say since I wasn't there. However, IMO--I believe those thugs were intermixed with civvies who were at the same time-too fragging STUPID to stay out of the way.

 

Aint that the truth! Case-in-point, "Pearl Harbor", starring Ben-I-cant-believe-I-actually-made-this-piece-of-sh*t-Affleck. If ever there was a more implausible movie, I dont think I've seen it.

 

Hi Keystone--P.H. is another classic example of a waste of celluliod and time. I actually saw them shooting some of their Aircraft Carrier scenes when they filmed on the Lady Lex-which is permanently moored at North Beach-just across from the Museum I volunteered a few years of time for. A local radio talk show host by the name of Eric von Wade-was one of the extras who got filmed on the Lex. When you see scenes of when planes were being scrabeled, watch out for someone who looks directly at the camera and who is sticking his tongue out-and that will be Eric von Wade. I couldn't believe it that the censors did not cach that-or by that time, probably didn't care to edit it out? Also, go to: Latest News and you will see what he looks like ;-))

 

Edited do due misunderstanding

 

I shall do likewise and hope that the others follow suit...........Good call TK

 

No worries Jug, you cant please some people. if we dont step in, were greedy Americans wrapped up in our lives. if we do step in, were greedy Americans wrapped up in our own lives..Damned if ya do, damned if ya dont.

 

I don't think that is official policy for the US and NATO to involve themselves in crisis situations around the globe, but seems that many people abroad seem to think that way. We have got involved in many situations since WW2, and got the "world policeman" nickname tagged to us. Maybe that's not so bad in the long run. We haven't had an enemy foriegn soldier on our shores (except maybe POWs) since the War of 1812, and until September 11, no attacks have been made against us here. Nothing substantial that is, a few Japanese submarines surfaced and shelled a few refineries in California, and some Japanese balloon bombs created a few forrest fires in the northwest in WW2, but that's about it. And I'm sure several wars have been averted by our meddling. Maybe if someone did a little meddling and intervening, say in the Balkan Wars in the early 20th century and the years leading up to WW1 and WW2, maybe there wouldn't have been a lot of hard times and unpleasantness that was experienced by all the countries affected by all that "inaction." We saw what "Peace in our Time" got us. Just my idea. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

 

I think what the USA does in terms of the Policing of other nations is generally, but not always a good thing. I believe that the USA have the best intentions at heart, and are not simply salvaging the good parts. Perhaps they get something out of it perhaps they don't as long as it is agreed upon by both the USA and the nation they are policing I don't think it really matters.

However the USA also has a very imperialist way of doing things, and unfortunately is a bit forceful in there ways, you could use the IRAQ situation as an example. Not the war itself but perhaps the IRAQ's didn't want democracy did they have to have it? Perhaps they like a dictatorship, just not Hussein. Please feel free to prove me if I am wrong, since I am not well versed in the politics of Iraq, but it did seem that it was a bit forced. Anyway, the point was that the USA is a bit imperialist, how way is best and what we say goes. Another good example is the war against the Nth Koreans and the WMD, why does the USA and the other larger countries get Nuclear weapons but not the smaller nations?
I know the UN's feelings to the Koreans is not overally friendly, but what about if Australia wanted such weapons, would the US allow that? If so why is it ok for one nation but not the other?

 

This is starting to resemble the falklands thread... We should all in future back down to aggression and let the wordsmiths cheer on the bully boys.

 

I'm not sure why people call the US "imperialistic" in her endeavors. We don't keep anything we take in wars, eventually we give it back or turn it loose. I'm not talking about all the land we beat out of the Indians (our kind), the Mexicans and others in the name of manifest destiny, but in modern times. Nowadays all we do is reconstruct the damage, invest money and ask for a place to bury our fallen soldiers....

Back to "Black Hawk Down."

 

One of you still has me dads wallet.

 

All I can manage to say about this post is: Um??????? (Scratches his head in absolute disbelief at what he had read in this post, as he walks away.)

 

I am wondering at what I said that offends people.

 

If its my comment on not being able to honor them with success then yeah I dont think Somalia was a success. Look at how they are still killing eachother today.


But hey, fine I know where im not wanted.

 

The US didn't go there to restore order or take anything. The US was there as part of a Multi National Operation to provide food and water relief. Aideed was taking those relief supplies and using them for his Army. When the UN pulled out and stopped relief shipments so did the US.

In short your entire post was offensive.

 

I didnt mean that the UN was there to take something; I meant to compare the mission in the movie to a simple salvage operation as if it was getting valuable caro from a ship wreck. In fact I was mostly agreeing with you about poor planning and intel of that specific raid.

 

The way it was percieved is that the US was a bunch of Jackles

 

Yeah I think I just reread it the way you guys did. Ill take it out.