87 of 93 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A stunning piece of film, October 28, 2010
Michael A. Duvernois
This review is from: Restrepo (DVD)

Ninety minutes of the Afghan Korengal Valley, with no talking heads, no interviews, just the soldiers there in the valley. Named after an output named after a medic killed in the line of duty. This ties in rather strongly with WAR (Junger's War) which is also coverage of the same area of Afghanistan. It's an emotional film that tells the story of the soldiers posted there but leaves any and all interpretations to the viewer. It's one small, but very dangerous, piece of the war and needs no additional plot, or subplots, other than the daily life in the field.

I left the movie saying, "oh my, fifteen months." It's nearly inconceivable to me, fifteen months in such a place. A place few Americans could find on a map, and far fewer could explain the importance of. It's a must-see movie regardless of your politics.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

K. Vue says:
Wow no interviews huh? Oh really ....how about the interviews with the soldiers themselves? This part really adds to the overall emotional experience in the film. Yes the place would be extremely rough going especially with the rugged terrain they had to ruck, live, and fight on. Having served in Iraq myself, I was lucky to not have to climb those mountains and fight under those cicumstances. This film will remind the young men in this country that have not serve in the armed forces to STFU about petty complains at their jobs and daily lives.

12 of 19 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Travis J. Harlev says:
I completely agree,I'm an iraq vet myself-11B-4th ID and most people have no idea how great they have it!

3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
Hi Michael,

The sentiment that Restrepo is "an emotional film that...leaves any and all interpretations to the viewer" was baffling at first.

But technically, your claim is true.

After the Pentagon vetted the the film-makers, reviewed their past work for ideological correctness, and made support for the film conditional upon the "proper" viewpoints, dialog, and portrayals in the final cut, then it is safe to leave "any and all interpretations to the viewer" as you suggest.

I suppose if I'm interested in making sure elephants are regarded as thin and I have the power, I can blindfold journalists, block their ears, nose, and mouth, and place them where they can only touch the elephant's tail. Then I can urge them to do the most exhaustive and open documentary on the nature of elephants in what we call a win-win scenario: it demonstrates my unparalleled commitment to freedom of the press, unbiased investigation, and even my noble support for such open, free speech and willingness to let people make up their own minds, regardless of politics.

3 of 14 people think this post adds to the discussion.

T. Holland says:
I thought this documentary was really good.I also served in the military USAF until late 2003 and I spent my last tour at Ramstien AB in Germany just down the road from Landsthul Reginal where most all wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan stop at on their way home.I worked on the flight line every day so I saw these wounded guys first hand and it made me do my maintenance work until my hands bleed because I knew the harder I and the members of my squadron worked the faster the Army and Marines on the ground would get the gear they needed and the wounded would get to a good medical facility faster.

Most civilians have no clue just how hard it is for guys who are front line combatants what they go through it is really tough.I think every American should see Restrepo so they can get a glimpse of what an American in direct combat goes through.

And every vet should watch it as well as it wil make you want to extend a hand to fellow vets in need.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.
Hi T. Holland.

What would you say to those who (like me) believe in the golden rule, and that most important consideration is whether military conquests are immoral crimes?

2 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.

T. Holland says:
I would say to you that you are very clearly trolling around Amazon posts because you have nothing better to do with your time and wanting to show off you belief in the "golden rule". What ever that is.There could be 100 different golden rule to 100 different people.For example a drug dealers golden rule would likely be "Sell drugs to kids to get them buying from me for life." a pacifists golden rule might be "Never harm another person even when they might want to harm me." a pastors golden rule might be "come to church often so that your soul is safe."

Also according to military law a member of the military is obliged to follow all lawful orders and seeing as I was never ordered to commit a war crime like purposefully killing a civilian I can honestly saw that I never did anything immoral.I am obviously aware that at times bad things happen to innocent people in wars and what not but I suppose that is part of being part of the human race.

If your goal was to some how make me feel bad about my time in the military you have horribly failed.Also I never said that I agreed or disagreed with any conflict fully that my country was involved in while I was in the military.

8 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.]
Hi T. Holland,

I'm sorry to have given the impression of trolling. I'm using the "maxim of reciprocity" form of the golden rule that Christians find in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, but it is common in most religions and ethical systems.

What I'm interested in is that military conquest of countries is illegal and for most people immoral. I would not want China attacking us if we did not hand over someone they suspected was in the U.S. and that this person had led Tibetan terrorists. If they made this demand without evidence like we did to Afghanistan, it would seem especially illegal. Lack of U.N. authorization would be another important thing I would count against them, and would think China should be taken to the world court, punished, and be forced to pay reparations.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad, I'm just trying to understand how enthusiastic supporters of military action consider Iraq and Afg. legal or moral, especially considering the massive death and suffering caused.

1 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

T. Holland says:
I think honestly that you a bit outside the realm of this site Buck. Honestly this is a site which sells things and allows people to post reviews on products offered.Your comments have nothing directly to do with this with this purpose seeing as you are in no way talking about this film yourself.I doubt you have even seen it.Since you have not posted anything about this film specifically. You seem in fact to be completely missing the point of the film which at least for me is what a a small group of soldiers go though during a tour of duty.The film does not attempt to convince the viewer of any point of view this is left to to the viewer.

There are many forums on the web which would much better suit what you are trying to discuss perhaps you should go to them instead.I am not going to provide further responses on this.

5 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.]
I'm sorry you're unwilling to discuss or consider what it seems are very important issues relating to the film and the wars.

Regrettably, this is what seems to be almost a litmus test for irrational beliefs: the inability to discuss real world facts contrary to the belief, or one's internal concepts which would bring incompatibility to conscious awareness, where it might be examined.

You rightly point out that my comments are an attempt to understand your and others attitudes rather than discussing the film which I will do now in light of your withdrawal. My observations are that emotional attachment to opinions can cripple normal cognitive function. This crippling is the purpose of indoctrination, which we may plausibly conclude this film does according to reviews and the studio summary. How can it do that?

Media indoctrination occurs by choice of topic and framing. The Nazi's produced an economic miracle during the worst of the depression along with other notable achievements, but we would consider it unacceptable for a documentary to focus only on this while ignoring the harm and crimes committed in the process.

With Restrepo, or more generally any film: if it does not give equal time at least to those on the receiving end of apparently criminal violence, it certainly seems we may plausibly regard it as biased, as we would if any other country produced it.

1 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Rebeca Argiro says:
Buck Field
My husband is a medic with the 54th Engineer Batallion currently serving in the same region that Restrepo documents. We have a 2 year old daughter.
We have no time to discuss if the war is ethically moral or not. We are only concerned with him making it back home alive.
How dare you even compare what our brave young men and women are doing over there to Nazi war crimes.
-Supportive Army Wife

D. Townshend says:
I have a question for you. What are these so called war crimes that you are referring to? Also, have you been to either country or just sit behind your computer in your comfortable home? Have you ever served in the military? I have been to both countries, I have served in the military. I saw no war crimes committed in either country. I can tell you this, without ever being there and seeing the people of those countries. Hearing there stories and what they went through. You will never understand. You can ask members of the military all the questions you want. They will not give you the answer you want to hear, why you might ask? Because even if they do, you will never understand. Instead of comparing the military actions in both wars to Nazi war crimes(which clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about), you should just tell them thank you and be on your way. Have a good day Buck Field and I hope one day you can get out of this hateful life you lead.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
Hello Rebecca,

I think we would agree that taking the time to discuss films, read reviews, and respond to comments indicates your claim to have "no time" is untrue - a common and obvious self deception.

In contrast, I believe your claim that your only concern is getting him back alive is more or less true, in the sense that you believe it.

My judgment is that you are as sincere as German wives who were in a similar situation and felt identical to you is "how I dare" to compare them. Surely they felt a duty to be "supportive army wives" as well. How would you judge the wife of a Nazi soldier who was patriotic and loyal, and ignored evidence that might cause her to reappraise the family's support for illegal foreign occupations, for example.

If such a wife were your friend or cousin, what might you say to try to reach her? Presumably we agree that if we care, we should try to make her aware, to warn her somehow...to do or say something, even if we failed.

0 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
Hello D. Townsend,

Before answering, I think we need to agree on what is a crime. If we agree on the definitions in the U.N. charter and General Assembly Resolution 3314, U.S. conquest and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, (and many others) qualify as international aggression, although it seems possible to defend the position that they may only qualify for the less serious crime of international terrorism. This distinction is what the lawyers in a functioning World Court would have to decide.

I believe some of my advantages (well-off family, good schools, jobs, etc.) are best used by me to keep people like Rebecca's husband (and my best high school friends) from being turned into murderers or corpses primarily for corporate profits and political advantage.

0 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

D. Townshend says:
You are a coward in life and will never be able to look past his own paranoia. And you and your trolling ways on amazon will be ignored. Cause you didn't even answer any of my questions, and really hope you die a slow agonizing death, you know a cowards death. Anyone can sit from behind a keyboard and act like there smart, but in the end they are still a bitch......like you Buck Field.

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Rebeca Argiro says:
My husband is a medic. He is obligated to save lives of U.S. military, U.N. forces, civilians, contractors AND the Taliban/Al-Qaeda.

Please explain to me how this is similar to Nazi war crimes; i.e. the torturing and killing of millions of innocent people?
Afghan Police Force

Furthermore, in reference to the no time comment: are you assuming that the 10-20 minutes a week I get to speak with my husband should be spent discussing morals? I work full time, do an internship for my graduate degree, do schoolwork AND I'm a single parent. Literally, I do not have time to go find a group of concerned citizens on the ethics of why our government chose to be involved in the Middle East. It is what it is.

I just hope that the friends I have down-range make it back. They are fathers, brothers, sons and I know their wives and children.

Perhaps if you actually knew some of the soldiers, marines, and air men that were there and what its like, you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
Hello Rebecca,

As I indicated, some of my dearest friends from high school were soldiers, marines, and/or air men who I'm not inclined to judge. They were, (in my opinion) largely criminally misled to believe that the U.S. was threatened by WMD's. Hundreds of times they were told that an attack "any day" could "come in the form of a mushroom cloud" by leaders who knew this to be a lie. Friends left Texas as as patriotic, fun-loving, adventurous friends and team-mates, coming back (if alive) full of guilt and sorrow for the killing they did for a lie, and in physical pain from broken bones, in one case a crushed spine, and as often as not: addicted to prescriptions or illicit drugs. Like you, I want everyone back safely, my argument is not against the victims of this scam. The view that the US is "savior of the world" makes us a laughingstock around the world.

It is the untouchable leaders who amass fortunes while "the little people" die for their lies that is the similarity. It wasn't "Germany" who lost in WWII, it was those who died and the families that were ruined who lost. Top Nazis were snatched to the US by elites or ensconced in positions of power in Germany in exchange for making sure reparation funds and other advantages flowed into the proper pockets. The same is going on now, and I believe it should be fought now, just as it should have been fought then.

We cannot allow those who own society to lie and deceive, causing vast suffering for political and financial gain to profit from their crimes. I believe we should resist, if we can. Perhaps your family cannot now, and if that's your choice - I respect it, with the hope that you will find such an opportunity in the future.

I appreciate that you seriously consider my opinion and respond seriously, for which you have my thanks.

1 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Rebeca Argiro says:
Buck -
You keep referring to the "lies" that the government have been feeding us. I will not argue that by the time information reaches the general public, it is never going to be the top secret material they discuss in the pentagon.

Do I believe we went to war for WMDs? No. I believe we went to war because of numerous reasons - none of them having to do with oil which is what a majority of the American people believe.

I can say that I believe Iraq to be in a better spot without their tyranical leader in office.

My husband did not join the Army because he wanted to go find WMDs. He had an overwhelming sense of need to serve his country, in any capacity that he was needed. He is almost done with his 4 years, he will get out. He will be a better person with all of the things he has learned and experienced, courtesy of the U.S. Army.

May I also mention that I was also apart of the Army at one point. I joined because I felt proud and lucky to have grown up in the US. I love this country and I wanted to do my part.

Its not always about believing the conglomorant that is the U.S. government - but getting back to basics and just doing your patriotic duty. Our soldiers are not over there murdering Afghans - they distribute food and clothes, they build building, they help with getting clean drinking water. In fact, as part of the counterinsurgency program - our soldiers are FORBIDDEN to engage in any combat if there is a chance that a civilian may be in the way.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
Hi Rebecca,

If we both agree that the US did not go to war for WMD's, do we consider those positive WMD claims to have been lies?

0 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Rebeca Argiro says:
I do not think they were lies on the part of our president. I feel like someone in the network that is our government, made up bad intel, and thats how we ended up in that predicament.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Buck Field says:
Hi Rebeca,

I certainly agree with the contributory causes you mention, but I don't think they preclude criminality. Just because someone else makes up bad intel, it has no basis on whether I commit some crime or other, it only means I have a potentially better excuse.

If evidence indicates "bad intel" resulted from administration pressure, deliberate manipulation, coordinated deception, and apparently: intentional ignorance, I think we might want to reject the ignorance defense, wouldn't we?

Example: Jon claims that he wants to kill Bill, and begins following Bill to and from work. Jon draws Bill's driving routes with times at several intersections labelled "poss. collision spot". One intersection is circled.

In a few weeks Jon is driving his car and has "an accident" at the circled intersection, killing Bill. A tox test reveals Jon was impaired on prescription drugs while at the wheel of the vehicle.

Jon's defense is that he was impaired, had no intent to kill Bill, and should not be held responsible for murder. He admits mistakenly taking a prescription improperly, but claims anyone could have made such an oversight based on the doctor's complex instructions.

Based on Jon's actions prior to the accident, can we infer intent to harm Bill regardless of the medicine and doctor's instructions?

If we care about justice, law, and the evidence demonstrates motive, intent, and opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe citizens in a democracy have an obligation to make a determination and take appropriate action for the good of the country as best we can.

What do you think?

Rebeca Argiro says:
Your definition of justice and law does not apply when fighting an enemy who doesn't play by the rules.

I don't think we can hold the soldiers them selves accountable for the mistakes of our government. I think that the sacrifice those people make are much more than you and I ever will. So for me, I know that the ends justifies the means. I know that the reason the gov't gave to go to war was inaccurate,however, I still believe that we needed to go to war; just for different reasons.

So who exactly do you feel should be punished for the inaccuracies of going to war? The president? His advisor? My husband? I don't see why it matters; it is a known fact that the middle east harbors terrorists that have violated the United States and killed our citizens. Reason enough to go to war; they didn't need to fabricate anything about WMD's.

Buck Field says:
Hi Rebeca,

Since I provided no definition of justice, I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

No one advocates holding soldiers responsible for mistakes of government, not even Osama bin Laden. He holds all invaders, (and Americans generally), accountable because we live in a democracy and failed to use our democratic power to stop the violent conquest of muslim countries, and stop US Govt. support for brutal tyrannies in the region, like Mubarak's Egypt, Hussein's Iraq, the Shah's Iran, the Saud's Saudi Arabia, and so on. He fought Soviet invaders for the same reasons.

I would ask this question: Do you really want the most evil (who "don't play by the rules) to control our morals? I don't. If we set our own morals to determine how to respond to evil, (perhaps using Christ's teachings), the world would be a better place.

Unless we are going to be unethical, we have to say that not only just for the U.S., but rather: if _anyone_ violates and kills people in another country, that country has "reason enough to go to war".

In other words: if it is wrong for them, it is wrong for us. Osama's justification for the NY attacks was that the U.S. has been killing and crushing Muslims in those countries for many decades.

Regrettably, that accusation had merit, just as it did against the Russians. If nations (and people) always claim self-defense, (even the Nazi's), how shall we respond to threats? As Jesus did, or like Hitler did?

0 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Rebeca Argiro says:
Unless we are going to be unethical, we have to say not just for the U.S., but rather: if anyone violates and kills people in another country, that country has "reason enough to go to war".
-How can this be Osama's justification? What did our citizens directly do to the people of Afghanistan that should warrant that sort of action? I hate to suggest it, because I know you trying to play devils advocate, but you sound like a Bin Laden supporter.
Regrettably, that accusation had merit. I don't think either of us thinks "war" is a proper response, do we?
-I think that after 9/11 we had every reason to go to war. I supported that decision, and I still do. As I remember, I was a junior in college and watched in the student union as unknown enemies flew the 2nd plane in to the one of the WTC towers. The terror and sadness of that day will never go unforgetten for me. I wish that the government hadn't tried to sell us on their WMD campaign. I would have supported them if they had told us that they were going to get the SOB's who killed our citizens on American soil.
failed to use our democratic power to stop the violent conquest of muslim countries, and stop US Govt. support for brutal tyrannies in the region, like Mubarak's Egypt, Hussein's Iraq, the Shah's Iran
-we got Hussein finally! we needed allies in the middle east to accomplish that! Honestly answer that you believe Osama killed a bunch of our citizens because he was mad we didn't stop tyranical leaders? Osama is a tyranical leader of an outlaw organization. They kill, rob and opress the people in their populous regions.
Do you really want the most evil to control your morals?
-I control my own morals. I choose who to support. I do believe that we should be given MORE options for things that we could support...(i.e. more than the repubs and dems).

Buck Field says:
Hi Rebecca,

You state after 9/11, "we had every reason to go to war" with the goal of getting "the SOB's who killed our citizens on American soil".

If Muslims believe they "have every reason to go to war" to get those responsible for killing Muslims in Muslim lands, was it wrong for them to support Osama's terrorist war against brutal Soviet conquests in the 1980's?

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Winter says:
Hi Buck,

Interesting conversation BTW.

There is a lot of geopolitical factors that affect the reasons why nations go to war. Since you touched on the issue of the "brutal" Soviet conquests in the '80s here are some of the reasons why the countries involved in the Soviet-Afghan War fought.

Pakistan: they wanted a bulwark and, to a greater extent, use the Afghan jihad against India. They were not against Soviet intervention but they realized that they can benefit from the weapons and training being given by the USA (through the CIA) on the jihadists and use that "training" (i.e. trained guerrilla fighters) against a possible future conflict against India.

Soviet Union (Russia): they saw a communist regime being threatened by Islamist fundamentalism. At first they thought that Najibullah (then the endorsed Soviet ruler of Afghanistan) could defeat the insurgency but when it became apparent that he cannot, the Politburo decided to intervene.

USA: we saw the Afghan conflict as a way to give the Russians a taste of their own Vietnam (it is a fact that Russian Spetznaz and military advisers helped the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War).

There are a lot of factors that affect why nations go to war with morals being the least of them.

As for me, I simply wanted to know whether this was a good film or not.


Dotting the landscape are UNHCR tents, which are used to house the many refugees in the region.
From wikipedia: "Over 1 million Afghans were killed. 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.  Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ These tents may or may not actually house refugees, as the tents have become popular with the Kuchis, a large nomadic tribe that forms the backbone of goat trade. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuchis

Buck Field says:
Hello Winter,

I would agree that some people in the countries you list wanted, saw, and/or thought in the way you describe. My belief is that if we don't understand the philosophy we are using to select one theory or explanation over another, we cannot improve our thinking.

This is what I'm trying to address with comparative questions in disagreement with Rebecca's apparent belief that we can simultaneously be ethical, in favor of killing others, and outraged when "our" people are killed. This seems more clearly inconsistent when, for example, the long history of US killing in Afghanistan, Arabia, Iran, here in Chile, and elsewhere seems completely unknown to US residents who advocate for reckless mass killing in a manner hard to distinguish from revenge. Note the language of R's justifications. There exist many statements by Nazi generals justification for death camps which are more measured and restrained. In the US however, such ferocious, radical "arguments" typically raise little if any concern, especially in military families, and for well-known reasons. My best friend led a SF team in Haiti decades ago, and the myths he believed about that country's history were as shocking as the vast ignorance which went with it.

Films like Restrepo provide a comforting mythology which I think dangerous to our national interest. People are told, for example that "faith" (not thinking critically) is morally good. God and country are merged in a patriotic religion very similar to those of other imperial examples. This theme recurs from the empires of the Romans, Spartans, Aztecs, Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Napoleonic, British, and continues on with the American Empire.

So long as our population remains blinded, kept in ignorance of history, the current structure of our society, and critical thinking skills needed to understand and plan good responses, hard collapse is inevitable. I don't want to see the US go through (or commit) the violence, misery and suffering that has resulted every time empires have been in our situation.

This is why Restrepo, and the vast amount of similar propaganda distresses me so. For the same reason I can't consider Restrepo a "good" film any more than I could consider "Der ewige Jude" a good film - discussing the details of cinematography or sound editing, ignores vastly more important issues with which intelligent patriotism and simple human morals are concerned.

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Nursing with compassion says:
Buck you need to read more as you seem more comfortable assessing and judging the events of war from the safety of home. You don't know of what you speak except from a biased view point from a book. Read Inside the Revolution or the Epicenter. It will give you an insight into why we are fighting this war. You are spouting off diatribe that has been handed you from a copysheet on public radio or public news.

Buck Field says:
Hello Nursing,

Yes, it is true I am more comfortable assessing and judging events from safety rather than in dangerous environments. Insinuations to the contrary indicate dishonesty.

You are also correct asserting I am biased, as is everyone. Beliefs that infallibility is accessible to humans (e.g.: via deities) is foolish and dangerous. The importance of philosophy is that it provides tools to choose biases. Those who do not choose their biases have them imposed upon them without their knowledge, often by organized groups.

The fact that you consider biases in favor of rational, critical thinking to be "spouting off" while advocating guidance from Rosenberg is disappointing. He is deeply committed to belief in magic, spirits, and the notion that stone age semi-literates are better able to inform us about reality and living well than science and basic human compassion. He justifies this with a "faith" that is indistinguishable from delusion.

In this way, he is similar to Junger & Hetherington, directors of Restrepo. They choose one particularly narrow view, (American) and tell a compelling story which lacks greater, more compelling problems because of this viewpoint. Rosenberg chooses an even narrower view, (Christian Evangelical American) and tells compelling stories of personal tragedy and triumph, but which lacks any reference greater, more compelling problems because of this viewpoint.

Perhaps if you knew more of the history of U.S. intervention, and the history of Christianity better, you might criticize my position meaningfully. This is actually a hope I explained to my daughters yesterday: that the tough critic is an opportunity to learn. Sycophantic praise tells one nothing and similarly, general criticism like yours offers no opportunity to explore that comes from well-researched factual details applied via a well-formed analytical method. Your post lacks these - but if you (or anyone) offers specific, well-supported criticism, I would be happy to have that opportunity to grow, reconsider my opinions, and learn something.

Michael T. Heider (Gainesville, FL United States)

This documentary, more than any other film, has convinced me of the coming downfall of our great nation. It shows an occupying army in a vast wilderness, a wilderness where countless armies have gone to die in the past. A culture vastly different than ours is ignorantly expected to join "our side" to vanquish a depraved enemy called the Taliban. We do not see any Taliban the whole movie. What you do see are murdered civilians. (Collateral damage in Army speak.) You also see immature soldiers, both enlisted and officer alike. In one scene an arrogant, cocky captain promises schools, hospitals, roads to the local elders in exchange for their support. Promises from an army captain who will be long gone, along with the occupying army, before any such projects are completed.

In another scene, an Afghani's cow is shot by American troops. When the local asks for fair compensation, he is given the weight of the cow in foodstuffs, not a replacement cow. Some system of law and equity. But such is the unilateral rule of government, and the US government is no different. Perhaps it is worse because we proclaim to stand for freedom and individual rights.

The US has succeeded in spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is the sole objective. As it was in Vietnam, Korea and all the other conflicts that our war based economy has sold the American people.

As Celine said: "We've no use for intellectuals in this outfit. What we need is chimpanzees. Let me give you a word of advice: never say a word to us about being intelligent. We will think for you, my friend. Don't forget it." I wish more of the members of the US military would wake up and think for themselves. They are not protecting our liberties, but instead they are giving our country massive debts that surely will lead to our demise in the near future. Tolstoy put the blame of the Napoleonic invasion of Moscow on the individual soldier who followed his orders, and I do too. It is not brave to fail to think, it is foolishness.

Ronald S. Rivas says:
i bet you where one of those liberal coward hiding under his desk during 9/11 .lets also mention korean war because korea would be better of under communism right (`and the military is civilian controlled you lib keep watching bill maher and micheal moore because they all ways tell the truth and have no agenda right')

Michael T. Heider says:
First off, your capitalization, spelling and grammar are sorely lacking. But I will try to reply to your post in a coherent fashion. As for my political affiliation, I am as far right (libertarian) on the spectrum as you can go without reaching total anarchy (not chaos mind you, anarchy). That means my contempt for the wealth redistribution, criminal / confiscatory policies of Moore and Maher is infinite. But what I can't understand is why Republican/conservatives don't see the use of force via the military as being as evil as say abortion (which I oppose as a violation of a child's rights)? Certainly S Korea is much better off due to our intervention. But the Millions of dead are not better off. Where is their voice? And what about Cuba? Congo? Why not invade these places? China also violates civil rights, shall we fight them? I can assure you I would take being alive under the Taliban to being dead under Karzai. But I digress, my point of reviewing the film was simply to state I walked away from the film disgusted on how ignorant and disrespectful the soldiers were in the film. We don't belong in Afghanistan, and we will one day leave having accomplished nothing as in Vietnam. And I was not scared on 9/11, as I know America is amazingly strong because of our individualism and rugged self reliance. We will only be brought down by enemies in our own Government who continue spending us into destruction.

zos56 says:
I think you are a little confused. Amazon reviews are meant to provide comment on a particular product (in this case a documentary) not American foreign policy in Afghanistan (or anywhere else for that matter). If anything, it seems to have been very successful in its intent by your own reckoning. So why one star?

Michael T. Heider says:
Why five stars by the numerous reviewers? The message it was conveying was a very poor one, in my opinion. On a side note, the film lacked any sort of plot or character connection. Besides, a 5 star review, based on your rubric, would be much less likely to be read.

K. Nielson says:
So why don't you just leave the United States and live in another country? Wherever you go, i'm sure you will find an imperfect political system called government for you to annoy. In a democratic society, law is what is most beneficial to the majority of the population. Understand that it is your brain that cannot see the rationalism (frontal lobe) expressed by that majority.

No comments:

Blog Archive