Flags Of Our Fathers - Some Thoughts About The Movie
I just watched Flags Of Our Fathers, and would like to give some personal responses, while it is fresh on my mind.
Recently, Clint Eastwood has gone on record as saying it is an anti-war movie. Maybe so. He is certainly a curious one to lead the charge with such a message, considering he has built his reputation and made his millions through movies that glorify violence and gore. And, if that is his message, I do appreciate that the work is of such quality that it allows another interpretation. Personally, I did not discern a blatant anti-war message.
War is portrayed with much ugliness. And that is not only fair, but necessary. It should not be glorified., nor made to appear attractive. We should hate war, even as we understand it is sometimes a necessity.
Those who raised the flag at Iwo Jima were used as a marketing tool to sell the war effort to the American public. The message is made that such is a bad thing. A careful coverup, of the details and truth of exactly who planted the flag atop Iwo Jima, ensues with the complicit cooperation of the press, officials, and even the so-called heroes. Why such a scheme? Because, all involved know how important is the support of the public in order for the war to be conducted to the length and intensity necessary for victory. Of course, this could never happen today with the war in Iraq, because of a political ideology hell-bent upon the defeat of the American effort, and foremost for political gain.
And, poor Ira Hayes. He could never accept the role of hero. He knew the real heroes died upon the beaches of that island. All he did was put up a flag. And as I watched and considered the disintegration of his character, I was brought to consider the definition of a hero. It is true that most heroes are fundamentally created in the minds of a needful public, that in reality they are just men.
I understand over 6,800 American soldiers died at Iwo Jima, on a little island about five miles long and two miles wide. That's awful, and ugly. And that was only one battle fought in the course of an awful and ugly war. And I am thankful the America, of that time, had the stomach to tough it out.
02.15.07 (10:21 pm) [
edit]
posted by:
lisa (
reply)
post date:
02.15.07 (9:08 pm)
my grandpa was sent to iwo jima after the battle to pick up corpses. it was pretty gory. i'm sorry he had to see that, and i'm sorry eastwood is getting rich off it.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
02.15.07 (9:49 pm)
"Of course, this could never happen today with the war in Iraq, because of a political ideology hell-bent upon the defeat of the American effort, and foremost for political gain."
This might be the most full-of-sh*t statement I've ever read that you've written. It offends the hell out of me especially when you know damn well it's a lie. Beneath you, AND completely undermines any other statement you try to make in the post.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
02.16.07 (2:09 pm)
Reply to: lisa
In defense of Eastwood, I do not think the movie is a shallow attempt to entertain, but truly a careful and well presented effort to make a serious statement. Now I don't agree with the statement. But, this is a significant film, worth your time to see.
Your grandfather's task at Iwo Jima was truly grim. When we think of warfare, generally we do not think of the necessity of such jobs. How did they preserve the bodies, for shipment to the states? They must have a team of soldier-morticians who work overtime preparing the bodies? And, what do they do with all the enemy bodies? I guess a mass grave is dug, or perhaps incineration. It's a gruesome subject, but part of war. I'll bet your grandfather has some sad memories and bad dreams. I am thankful for his service- he deserves the highest of respect.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
02.16.07 (2:17 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
I don't know; along the way I've probably made plenty of statements you could label as such. Now I'm not trying to tell a lie- I truly believe what I say. It's been reinforced by some of the statements, recently, by Congressman Murtha. He intends to use a crafty maneuver to make it almost impossible for soldiers to be readied for Iraq, and he is quite forthright about his intentions. So, he wants to facilitate failure. And the vote by the House, today, against our president is further evidence of a smoldering intent to lose this war. They say they support the soldier- they have a rather grim way of showing it. I predict, rather soon, their perpetual public opinion polls will show they have gone too far. Then they'll go back to stealth opposition, waiting again for opportunity to gain the upper hand. It's politics, cynical politics. It angers me.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
02.16.07 (2:58 pm)
WWII was worth rallying around. The Iraq campaign should never have been waged.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
02.19.07 (7:07 am)
PDave, have you read the book? I thought the movie was okay, but you just can't squeeze that story into a 2 hour movie.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
02.19.07 (7:10 am)
Reply to: bawdy
Yeah, we certainly should have gone to war to stop that genocidal dictator with designs on world domination, but we should have NEVER waged war against that OTHER genocidal dictator with designs on world domination.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
02.19.07 (10:39 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
You're seriously comparing Hussein to Hitler??? How's that WMD search going?
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
02.19.07 (11:23 am)
Reply to: bawdy
Well, no, I was thinking about Emperor Hirohito (since we WERE talking about the Pacific Theater), but just for S&G's let's stick with your comparison.
Participated in the genocide of his fellow countrymen - check.
Invaded one or more sovereign nation(s) in the interest of expanding the area under his rule - check.
Likes "Ethnic Cleansings" - check.
Used brutal tactics to suppress opposition to his rule - check.
Launched primitive guided missles on neighboring countries as a form of terror - check.
I'd say the comparison holds.
Don't be a sheep. 1) To date, over 500 chemical munitions have been found in Iraq. The argument that they are probably "pre-Gulf War" is moot, chemical weapons = WMD. 2) Iraqi intelligence documents recovered in 2004 show that Iraq was in possession of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as 2000.
Assuming that you are older than 18 years of age and are responsible enough to vote, who'd you vote for in the last Presidential election?
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." = John Kerry, Oct., 2002
Your neighbor is a known criminal. He's threatened to break into your home and take your stuff. He's been caught breaking into other homes in your neighborhood. Are you going to wait until he actually does it before you try to prevent that from happening, hoping that maybe he'll leave you alone, that he's just bluffing? Or are you going to do the prudent thing and assume that he really means business?
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
02.20.07 (11:05 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
I'm Canadian so I didn't vote for president. And just who is responsible for enabling Hussein with WMD? Ronald Reagan. Sheep, indeed. That's how I view your blind patriotism. According to your views, you should also be waging war in Iran and North Korea. Where does this domino effect end and at what cost?
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
02.21.07 (6:43 am)
Reply to: bawdy
Funny how you characterize my support for the Iraq war as simple "blind patriotism" when you don't know a single thing about me. Actually, I'm ready for the war to end. I consider Iraq an insolent child that doesn't appreciate his/her parents have provided for him/her. I don't think the climate in the Middle East will allow a Democracy (or preferrably a Democratic Republic since Democracy is inherently dangerous) to take place. But the fact is that by leaving Iraq, the US weakens its standing in the world, and I believe that would encourage aggression toward its assets world-wide.
Who's responsible for providing Hussein with WMDs? The fact that you blame a single man (Reagan) for that shows the limit of your intelligence (or at least your understanding). How about blaming the US government in general? (Which, unless I don't remember this correctly, had a Republican Excutive Branch, but the Legislative Branch was in the control of Democrats.) The CDC sent biological samples to Iraq, which Iraq said it needed for medical research, and this is believed to be what Iraq used to develop its biological weapons program. For its nuclear weapons program, Iraq got supplies from over 10 different countries including the US, Britain, France, Japan, Brazil, etc. 30 German companies alone provided Iraq with different materials (compared to 11 American and 10 British companies). On the other hand, most of Iraq's CONVENTIONAL weapons (which back during the 80's, were deemed far more of a threat than bio-chem weapons) were cast-offs from the Soviet Union. The AK-47, the T-80 tank, several MiG fighters, helicopters, the list goes on. Yes, the US equipped Iraq with weapons during the Iran-Iraq conflict, but when you consider that Iran was far more dangerous to the US at the time, that action makes sense. The US did the same thing when we allied with the USSR during WWII. From 1973 to 1982, Iraq had aquired over 68% of its arms from the Soviet Union, compared to 0% from the US. From 1983-1988 sales from the Soviet Union "dipped" to 58%, and the sales from the US "climbed" to 0.8%. From 1973 to 1990 the percentages are 68.9% from the USSR, the US comes in fourth behind France, China, and Egypt at 0.5%. Now I ask you, LOGICALLY, from where was Iraq more likely to have acuired WMDs?
The fact that you're quoting liberal talking points, "blind patriotism," "Where are the WMD's?" sounds and awful lot like the "Bah bah" of a sheep to me. Now this has gone on long enough on PastorDave's blog and has certainly crossed the line into Off Topic. If you wish to continue this discussion, I respectfully request that you "t-mail" me and not clog up his stuff.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
02.21.07 (11:02 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
Hey, you're the one who insinuated I was a sheep without knowing anything about me, so get off your high horse. So what if I said Reagan instead of Reagan's administration, which was my point? Iraq should be appreciative for the chaotic mess this war has left it in? Yeah, ok. Insolent child, indeed. I've heard enough from you to know that continuing further discussion is fruitless. Baaaa!
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
02.22.07 (7:30 am)
Reply to: bawdy
Aw man, this was just getting good. I didn't INSINUATE that you were a sheep, I flat-out called you a sheep as in unthinking, part of the herd. And typically you don't like the argument so you run away. Just about the only page you didn't take out of the liberal playbook was calling me "Hitler." And you can't follow directions, either.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
02.22.07 (11:28 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
I happen to believe you're one of the sheep, not me. I'm capable of forming my own opinions without being swayed by the media or politicians talking out of their asses. Yes, I can follow instructions, but you see, I'm not a sheep...I have zero interest in continuing this discussion privately with you. Or publicly for that matter. Toodles!
