what does this have to do with politics? this film is about a squad of deranged soldiers that kidnap, rape and murder an innocent girl (based on true events)
Michael J fox baby! is he still alive?... we're all guilty b4 God so I don't bother with politics much anymore :) I used to make my head gray with it all not anymore if I do focus let it be on Christ besides he can change things in the world I can't do anything about anything can't even get out of my own way. xD
In addition to being a war criminal (Joseph Von Ribbentrop was executed not only for putting people in ovens, but for *wars of aggression*, which is exactly what the invasion of Iraq was--an unfounded war of aggression) and crimes against humanity, both of which Cheney are guilty of. In addition to being a war criminal, he is also a crook--his bastard child company Halliburton has been under investigation by the Pentagon, Supreme Court, and military auditors in Iraq.
@hopkins4545 Iraq being a "war of aggression" is nothing more than your opinion. Which crimes against humanity are Bush and Cheney guilty of, exactly? How is Cheney a crook? The Pentagon is not investigating Haliburton - they don't do that - neither does the Supreme Court - it's the Federal government. Being investigated (which I support) is not the same as being guilty. You will note that they still have government contracts, even under the present administration.
@bigdatut Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez have blood on their hands whether you care to admit it or not. "Going off the deep end" usually means that you're recognizing truth and taking your institutional/tribal loyalty goggles off: something I suppose people likey ourself are unable to do. Halliburton is guilty as hell of every manner of corruption, including a case in which a female employee was raped and they managed to never bring it to trial.
@hopkins4545 Ok how do Bush, Cheney et al have blood on their hands? Be specific. How is Haliburton guilty of all manner of corruption? Be specific. If a female employee was raped, that's a crime committed by one person against another. How is Haliburton responsible for that? Please try to be rational. Here is something to think about. Democrats are in charge of the white house and congress for 2 years now. Bush is still not charged with murder. Why? Because Bugliosi is wrong. See?
@bigdatut Now I see that we have a man who is willfully naive. The reason George Bush cannot be charged with murder and that the Democrats wouldn't do it (they couldn't even impeach him, remember?) is because he was a U.S. PRESIDENT. Surely as a lawyer (and obviously a rabid right winger) you must know that a person committing a crime on Wall Street or an employee of BP isn't going to get charged or arrested for anything when in reality they don't differ from a crack dealer is sentenced
@hopkins4545 Cheney got going when the going was good as far as Halliburton was concerned--got his severance package and all before it was recognized as a criminal organization. Are you seriously suggesting that being investigated doesn't suggest guilt?? Like O.J. Simpson? (And Halliburton is as guilty as O.J. Simpson--let me give you a few links with real *legal* information about these things, since the character limit doesn't allow me to write everything.
@hopkins4545 So you are criticizing Cheney for LEAVING Haliburton. You are aware, I assume, that Haliburton is still performing government contracts today, as we speak? And why do you think that is? Being investigated neither suggests guilt nor innocence, because the internal auditing process is ongoing, as it should be. Vincent Bugliosi, by the way, was selling a book. Nobody ever suggested his arguments, which were interesting, should be taken seriously.
@bigdatut Vincent Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and took down a number of criminals no one else could. He's, see, a LAWYER, a legimtimate lawyer--I take his arguments seriously. Do you practice law? Focus: I know Ho Chi Minhn was a butcher, have no argument there. So was Richard Nixon. The reason you're trying to differentiate is simple: because we're in the U.S. You're not arguing anything logical here, you're arguing emotionally. My grandfather fought in WW2. TRUTH matters!
@hopkins4545 Took you long enough... Bugliosi is a famous attorney. He is not semi retired, and is trying to sell a book. Do you think he really believes Bush should be tried, imprisoned and executed? I don't think he does. Yes, I practice law. Please provide evidence that Nixon was a butcher. I'm not arguing at all, I'm asking you questions. All of my male relatives fought in WW2 as well. Truth does matter. Now give me some. I'm not calling you names - don't call me any either.
@hopkins4545 Ok try to focus... focus... all I am asking you to do is to be specific. Just tell me your opinion. What is the worst thing Haliburton every did? What is the worst thing Cheney ever did? What is the worst thing Bush ever did? Just tell me your opinion and I will respond without attacking you. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
This man, whoever he really is, should be amongst the highest honored in the U.S. military. Instead, he has to lead the rest of his life in fear and rejection from his fellow soldiers. Repugnant.
Uh huh. So if our allies are invaded we should let them die. What is an ally, afterall, if not someone who helps you if you are invaded? Nobody is asking you to go, if you are scared. These days it's an all volunteer military. So don't volunteer. Oh, but I bet you think our government is corrupt and should be tried as war criminals. Well... good luck with that.
The point is,if no one fought,(reguadless of who starts it) there'd be no war,w/o an enemie to fight.And yes,the soldiers at Abul should be prosecuted,as Calley should have been,in Nam.
No, that's not the point. The point is that communist North Vietnam invaded democratic (such as it was) South Vietnam, and they did so to remove that form of government from the region, as part of an overall plan to convert that part of the globe. They were our allies, and they asked us to help them, which we did. Sure it would be nice if nobody fought. It would be nice if nobody stole, murdered, lied or cussed too. That's not the world we live in. Somebody has to stand up.
@bigdatut Richard B. Cheney should certainly be tried for war crimes--how can you possibly contest that in any legal sense? I'd be interested in your argument. GB
@hopkins4545 Are you joking? As a lawyer, I can think of any number of legal arguments why Vice President Cheney should not be tried for war crimes. But, as you probably know, that's not how it works. They way it works is, you point out something he did that would violate the laws of war. So... go ahead. What, precisely, do you think he did? This is not a rhetorical question. You tell me, and I will respond.
@bigdatut Oh, I'm very serious--has International Law changed since you passed the bar? Have the Nuremburg Laws, Geneva Conventions, Articles of Confederation, etc etc been changed? Can you tell me what they are, as a "lawyer"? Cheney (who most psychologists I've known believe is an example of Anti Social Personality Disorder, thus his intense desire to be caught and revelling in his "love of torture, my big support for it", as he put it) is guilty of the same crimes the Nazis were hung for.
@hopkins4545 Hoohay. Of course International Law has changed - it is amended all the time. The Nuremburg Trials were afterall in the 1940's. The Geneva Convention was held before WWI, and has been amended on an ongoing basis ever since. Nazis were hung for doing things like putting people in ovens. You think Cheney did that? Why do you put "lawyer" in quotes? Do you question my credentials? Why? It is unethical for a psychologist to diagnose someone they have never interviewed. Try again.
@bigdatut lol. I think you should try again--perhaps you should try a debate with no less a man than Vincent Bugliosi, who managed to put Charles Manson behind bars and who also authored a book entitled "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder". Cheney subverted our constitution--NASA wiretapping, the violation of our very right to privacies, etc (have you read the Constitution) and gave the go ahead for torture--which is illegal, in case you haven't been practicing law lately. So????
@hopkins4545 Perhaps you meant to say "NSA wiretapping". NASA is in charge of the space program. Cheney never gave a go ahead for "torture." The administration position was waterboarding was not technically torture (it probably is) but at the time they had legal opinions that it fell into a gray area because those "enhanced" interrogation techniques had not been declared illegal at the time. yes I have read the constitution. Bugliosi is a famous lawyer who has gone off the deep end. Same as you.
what does this have to do with politics? this film is about a squad of deranged soldiers that kidnap, rape and murder an innocent girl (based on true events)
theexpliotedforlife 1 year ago
Michael J fox baby! is he still alive?... we're all guilty b4 God so I don't bother with politics much anymore :) I used to make my head gray with it all not anymore if I do focus let it be on Christ besides he can change things in the world I can't do anything about anything can't even get out of my own way. xD
Spiderwolfcakes 1 year ago
@Spiderwolfcakes yes he is alive! , , shame that he has parkinsons . .
cr2nr 1 year ago
In addition to being a war criminal (Joseph Von Ribbentrop was executed not only for putting people in ovens, but for *wars of aggression*, which is exactly what the invasion of Iraq was--an unfounded war of aggression) and crimes against humanity, both of which Cheney are guilty of. In addition to being a war criminal, he is also a crook--his bastard child company Halliburton has been under investigation by the Pentagon, Supreme Court, and military auditors in Iraq.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Iraq being a "war of aggression" is nothing more than your opinion. Which crimes against humanity are Bush and Cheney guilty of, exactly? How is Cheney a crook? The Pentagon is not investigating Haliburton - they don't do that - neither does the Supreme Court - it's the Federal government. Being investigated (which I support) is not the same as being guilty. You will note that they still have government contracts, even under the present administration.
bigdatut 1 year ago
@bigdatut Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez have blood on their hands whether you care to admit it or not. "Going off the deep end" usually means that you're recognizing truth and taking your institutional/tribal loyalty goggles off: something I suppose people likey ourself are unable to do. Halliburton is guilty as hell of every manner of corruption, including a case in which a female employee was raped and they managed to never bring it to trial.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Ok how do Bush, Cheney et al have blood on their hands? Be specific. How is Haliburton guilty of all manner of corruption? Be specific. If a female employee was raped, that's a crime committed by one person against another. How is Haliburton responsible for that? Please try to be rational. Here is something to think about. Democrats are in charge of the white house and congress for 2 years now. Bush is still not charged with murder. Why? Because Bugliosi is wrong. See?
bigdatut 1 year ago
@bigdatut Now I see that we have a man who is willfully naive. The reason George Bush cannot be charged with murder and that the Democrats wouldn't do it (they couldn't even impeach him, remember?) is because he was a U.S. PRESIDENT. Surely as a lawyer (and obviously a rabid right winger) you must know that a person committing a crime on Wall Street or an employee of BP isn't going to get charged or arrested for anything when in reality they don't differ from a crack dealer is sentenced
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Cheney got going when the going was good as far as Halliburton was concerned--got his severance package and all before it was recognized as a criminal organization. Are you seriously suggesting that being investigated doesn't suggest guilt?? Like O.J. Simpson? (And Halliburton is as guilty as O.J. Simpson--let me give you a few links with real *legal* information about these things, since the character limit doesn't allow me to write everything.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 So you are criticizing Cheney for LEAVING Haliburton. You are aware, I assume, that Haliburton is still performing government contracts today, as we speak? And why do you think that is? Being investigated neither suggests guilt nor innocence, because the internal auditing process is ongoing, as it should be. Vincent Bugliosi, by the way, was selling a book. Nobody ever suggested his arguments, which were interesting, should be taken seriously.
bigdatut 1 year ago
@bigdatut Vincent Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and took down a number of criminals no one else could. He's, see, a LAWYER, a legimtimate lawyer--I take his arguments seriously. Do you practice law? Focus: I know Ho Chi Minhn was a butcher, have no argument there. So was Richard Nixon. The reason you're trying to differentiate is simple: because we're in the U.S. You're not arguing anything logical here, you're arguing emotionally. My grandfather fought in WW2. TRUTH matters!
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Took you long enough... Bugliosi is a famous attorney. He is not semi retired, and is trying to sell a book. Do you think he really believes Bush should be tried, imprisoned and executed? I don't think he does. Yes, I practice law. Please provide evidence that Nixon was a butcher. I'm not arguing at all, I'm asking you questions. All of my male relatives fought in WW2 as well. Truth does matter. Now give me some. I'm not calling you names - don't call me any either.
bigdatut 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Ok try to focus... focus... all I am asking you to do is to be specific. Just tell me your opinion. What is the worst thing Haliburton every did? What is the worst thing Cheney ever did? What is the worst thing Bush ever did? Just tell me your opinion and I will respond without attacking you. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
bigdatut 1 year ago
This man, whoever he really is, should be amongst the highest honored in the U.S. military. Instead, he has to lead the rest of his life in fear and rejection from his fellow soldiers. Repugnant.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
Im suprised that he came back in one piece or uninjured, unlike any other Vietnam war movies.
N3RDProductionz 1 year ago
We never should have been there,anymore trhan we should be in Iraq,now
HUSKY57887 2 years ago 6
Uh huh. So if our allies are invaded we should let them die. What is an ally, afterall, if not someone who helps you if you are invaded? Nobody is asking you to go, if you are scared. These days it's an all volunteer military. So don't volunteer. Oh, but I bet you think our government is corrupt and should be tried as war criminals. Well... good luck with that.
bigdatut 2 years ago
The point is,if no one fought,(reguadless of who starts it) there'd be no war,w/o an enemie to fight.And yes,the soldiers at Abul should be prosecuted,as Calley should have been,in Nam.
HUSKY57887 2 years ago
No, that's not the point. The point is that communist North Vietnam invaded democratic (such as it was) South Vietnam, and they did so to remove that form of government from the region, as part of an overall plan to convert that part of the globe. They were our allies, and they asked us to help them, which we did. Sure it would be nice if nobody fought. It would be nice if nobody stole, murdered, lied or cussed too. That's not the world we live in. Somebody has to stand up.
bigdatut 2 years ago
@HUSKY57887 Cally should have been imprisoned for life under Military law.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@bigdatut Richard B. Cheney should certainly be tried for war crimes--how can you possibly contest that in any legal sense? I'd be interested in your argument. GB
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Are you joking? As a lawyer, I can think of any number of legal arguments why Vice President Cheney should not be tried for war crimes. But, as you probably know, that's not how it works. They way it works is, you point out something he did that would violate the laws of war. So... go ahead. What, precisely, do you think he did? This is not a rhetorical question. You tell me, and I will respond.
bigdatut 1 year ago
@bigdatut Oh, I'm very serious--has International Law changed since you passed the bar? Have the Nuremburg Laws, Geneva Conventions, Articles of Confederation, etc etc been changed? Can you tell me what they are, as a "lawyer"? Cheney (who most psychologists I've known believe is an example of Anti Social Personality Disorder, thus his intense desire to be caught and revelling in his "love of torture, my big support for it", as he put it) is guilty of the same crimes the Nazis were hung for.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Hoohay. Of course International Law has changed - it is amended all the time. The Nuremburg Trials were afterall in the 1940's. The Geneva Convention was held before WWI, and has been amended on an ongoing basis ever since. Nazis were hung for doing things like putting people in ovens. You think Cheney did that? Why do you put "lawyer" in quotes? Do you question my credentials? Why? It is unethical for a psychologist to diagnose someone they have never interviewed. Try again.
bigdatut 1 year ago
@bigdatut lol. I think you should try again--perhaps you should try a debate with no less a man than Vincent Bugliosi, who managed to put Charles Manson behind bars and who also authored a book entitled "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder". Cheney subverted our constitution--NASA wiretapping, the violation of our very right to privacies, etc (have you read the Constitution) and gave the go ahead for torture--which is illegal, in case you haven't been practicing law lately. So????
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545 Perhaps you meant to say "NSA wiretapping". NASA is in charge of the space program. Cheney never gave a go ahead for "torture." The administration position was waterboarding was not technically torture (it probably is) but at the time they had legal opinions that it fell into a gray area because those "enhanced" interrogation techniques had not been declared illegal at the time. yes I have read the constitution. Bugliosi is a famous lawyer who has gone off the deep end. Same as you.
bigdatut 1 year ago
@HUSKY57887 iraq was the same as this should be in afganistan or iran
silverdart333 6 months ago
great quality
and i love this song
en10 2 years ago
amazing film! sean penn is great in it......music could of been better imo......
1blondietuco1 2 years ago