ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Command_doh** · 29-01-2010, 01:07

Originally Posted by chrisg46

The film is set in 150 yrs time.... I bet the USMC had different attitudes 150 years ago, who knows how things may change?

What, you mean there is another U.S. policy other than 'bomb everything into oblivion, then shoot everything left that wasn't destroyed'?

Can't see that changing much tbh, just the weaponry. Its all about the exapansion of the hegemony......until China wakes up, obviously.

Cracking film mind. Loved it when the blue monkeys kicked arse with their pathetic little weapons and their jungle friends.

**joey_deacons_lad** · 29-01-2010, 01:09

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by longlivethequeen

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by Gren

To the likes of you and me, and more or less the entire English speaking world, the yanks have and always will be bit part players in the history of world wars or anything slightly related to warfare, ask mr and mrs obese yank in the street, and anything from the boxer rebelion to Rourkes drift to maybe the FI conflict, is an all american gungho stars and stripes spectactular of GI wins the day against nazi oppression every time.

.

Where to begin, where to begin.....I might humbly suggest you speak to some of your generation that was actually at risk in WWII to see what role the US played in resolving that small unpleasantness.

Also I am not sure of what history books you had studied but you might take a look at places like Yorktown in 1781, New Orleans in 1815, Khartoum in 1885, the Somme and Gallipoli (I realize this involved mainly ANZACs but the senior leadership and strategy was thoroughly British)in 1916 Singapore in 1941 in terms of British prowess at warfare if the standard of such things you apply in your post as applied to the US is used with the same force in evaluating various UK military adventures.

It seems to me that you are painting with far too wide a brush and demeaning the US military across the board for the relative success of Hollywood in portraying the US as it has (both good and bad) over the years. Cheers!

Did well in the philippines did you? at least our Generals do not leg it on a PT boat.

Do your generals customarily follow orders from their civilian leaders? If you will bother to research the incident to which you refer you will notice (not that it will matter probably since it does not fit your bias) that the good Gen. McArthur was ordered by his Commander in Chief to leave. I say this in spite of a profound lack of respect for that general in terms of his latter years.

Ah yorktown where the French saved your lilly ass'es while the brits were too busy burning churches and the like and setting the standard for airbrushing allies out of America's military history. And despite Mr.Gibsons best efforts at perverting history the brunt of the fighting in the Dardenelles campaign was born by the British with the French taking the second highest casulties.

**jumpinjarhead** · 29-01-2010, 01:12

Originally Posted by baboon6

Since the characters depicted in the film are apparently ex-Marines, now private security contractors, shouldn't Blackwater (or whatever they are called now) be the ones whinging? Oh wait...

Re Generation Kill, while I can understand some peoples' problems with the depictions of some of the Marine officers, the fact is you are going to get s*** people in all organisations. Besides that, I thought the portrayal of the characters in general was great, they were real people with personalities and emotions and interests, not the automatons or cardboard cut-out characters Marines are shown as in many films e.g. A Few Good Men.

First of all I am not whinging. :D

My point is that unfortunately not all film goers are as perceptive as you or others who may have some real world military experience. To cram the number of idiots, criminals, psychopaths etc. into a 2 hour film that so many of these films do is to distort the reality and affect the actual beliefs about the military presented. This is no accident--if you will research the producers and directors behind many of these films it will be apparent that they often hold rather jaundiced or outright hostile views toward the traditions and values of the military or the military or the "establishment" in general.

**thegimp** · 29-01-2010, 01:14

is this still going,

GO TO THE PUB DRINK BEER TALK ABOUT FOOTBALL BIRDS AND FIGHTING

**jumpinjarhead** · 29-01-2010, 01:16

Originally Posted by joey_deacons_lad

And despite Mr.Gibsons best efforts at perverting history the brunt of the fighting in the Dardenelles campaign was born by the British with the French taking the second highest casulties.

So what are you saying here? Are you contending the leadership that was involved in Gallipoli was competent because more Brits and French were KIA than ANZACs?

**jumpinjarhead** · 29-01-2010, 01:39

Originally Posted by thegimp

is this still going,

GO TO THE PUB DRINK BEER TALK ABOUT FOOTBALL BIRDS AND FIGHTING

I am stuck in a conference (in sunny San Diego however) so this helps me get through the day. I can't speak to the others. :D

**RearWords** · 29-01-2010, 02:11

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by thegimp

is this still going,

GO TO THE PUB DRINK BEER TALK ABOUT FOOTBALL BIRDS AND FIGHTING

I am stuck in a conference (in sunny San Diego however) so this helps me get through the day. I can't speak to the others. :D

Really, San Diego, and you're online. Go AWOL. Film depictions are undoubtably always inaccurate in some way. The English are always depicted in a out of date, OTT way, we really aren't that bad! So welcome to our world. Saw the film and I don't think the comment heard from people leaving the cinema will be "Jesus the way they depicted the Marines in that film was right/wrong". More like "Jesus those 3D glasses are cool and made those smurfs look cool and how many tits did you see?". There was always going to be "bad boys" it just so happens it was the Yanks this time....

**jumpinjarhead** · 29-01-2010, 05:23

Originally Posted by RearWords

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by thegimp

is this still going,

GO TO THE PUB DRINK BEER TALK ABOUT FOOTBALL BIRDS AND FIGHTING

I am stuck in a conference (in sunny San Diego however) so this helps me get through the day. I can't speak to the others. :D

Really, San Diego, and you're online. Go AWOL. Film depictions are undoubtably always inaccurate in some way. The English are always depicted in a out of date, OTT way, we really aren't that bad! So welcome to our world. Saw the film and I don't think the comment heard from people leaving the cinema will be "Jesus the way they depicted the Marines in that film was right/wrong". More like "Jesus those 3D glasses are cool and made those smurfs look cool and how many tits did you see?". There was always going to be "bad boys" it just so happens it was the Yanks this time....

I took your advice and have enjoyed the 21 degree C weather today! I have been on this movie bandwagon ever since Platoon so I can't stop now.

**codbutt** · 29-01-2010, 06:53

It wasn't realistic. The Royal Marines would have been shagging those creaures, not killing them.

**joey_deacons_lad** · 29-01-2010, 11:28

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by joey_deacons_lad

And despite Mr.Gibsons best efforts at perverting history the brunt of the fighting in the Dardenelles campaign was born by the British with the French taking the second highest casulties.

So what are you saying here? Are you contending the leadership that was involved in Gallipoli was competent because more Brits and French were KIA than ANZACs?

Nope im saying the fighting and subsequent dying associated with it wasnt done mostly by Anzacs which is what some would have you believe