Movie: Green Zone

I had watched it a month ago. I'd have to say that it is fantastic and very exciting movie.

The cool thing about this movie is Matt Damon was the only Actor in his squad. The rest of his men were actual veterans of OIF.

What do you guys think of this movie?

I had heard the director used it to plug an "anti-war" message... but I haven't seen it yet so I really don't know. It did look interesting when I saw the trailer though.

Actually, most of war films are anti-war.

yes sure it's an anti-Iraq war film ! Well, let me explain.

Before invasion, they had to justify war because they need to form an international Coalition (and because of international law). To justify its war in Iraq, the Bush administration told that :

- Iraq has some links with terrorists cells of Al-Qaeda.
- Iraq is still manufacturing WMD and so is a menace for peace in the worlds.

These're the two major arguments of Bush Administration for Iraq invasion. It's was easy for Afghanistan because reasons were real. By the way, some european countries are currently now in Afghanistan, to help USA in they objective to destroy terrorism. But for Iraq there's some doubts ;

At this time, nobody found WMD in Iraq since demilitarization after 1st Gulf War. Bush administration told that its secret service find some evidence about remilitarization of Iraq, but it was completely wrong. And they falsify some evidences in United Nations debates to form their coalition. Before invasion, USA sent some Special Forces teams and OGA in Iraq to find informations and localize WMD. They found nothing, absolutely nothing. G.W.Bush himself recognize he had wrong about WMD and told it was CIA that lied him. There're some internal problem after that in Bush Administration.

Precisely, this film speak about a team charged to find WMD in Iraq and this film explain there's nothing. They can find nothing and the reason is that a Bush administration's member lye them about their existence. This member of Administration always tell there's some WMD and send them informations about hide place, but finally when they arrive, there's nothing, informations are wrong.

It's the game of "cat and mouses", but there's no mouse... in relation with film it's : "soldiers search WMD...but there's no WMD in Iraq".

Do you understand what I explain ? (Hope it's clear, I tried to do my best in english to explain the reason why this film is anti-war).

Actually, most of war films are anti-war.

All films that are opposite of war speak about Iraq War, not Afghanistan. The american people is tired to make war, because reasons of war in Iraq appeared to be fake (Bush told himself he did some error), and real reasons of war are still confuse. But day after day, some american soldiers died in combat in Iraq and people do not understand their ultimate sacrifice for "no" reason. Do you understand ?


If you'll something else that's anti-war of Iraq, you can see this video song from U2 and Green day "the saints are coming" ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD_0fqvT32g

It's story of Katrina Storm ; when troops are deployed oversea, they are not in country to help american civilian : "US Iraq Troop redeployed to New Orlean", "Troop come hope to help Katrina Victims".

"Not as seen on TV" = Only in dream !

--> all these films, video, song are opposite to Iraq war. They do not critize soldiers, but political member that lie to people about why we go to war.

Very good point but the CIA did have credible information that there were WMD's in Iraq before OIF. But before the invasion, Iraq sent it's yellowcake to Syria. So no, Bush didn't lie, he was mis-informed. But let's not get too political here.
Andrew

Citation: All roads Lead to Baghdad

Today war movies have gotten so realistic. The war always have been negative thing and the movies portrayed exactly as it is therefore they are anti-war. If you were a director and you want to make realistic movie about war, you'd have to include scenes of US soldiers dying and a lot of blood. Even though it is NOT your intentional to make it an anti-war movie, the viewers would still see the horrors of war and all negatives about it. It's simple as that.

P-E wrote:yes sure it's an anti-Iraq war film ! Well, let me explain.

Before invasion, they had to justify war because they need to form an international Coalition (and because of international law). To justify its war in Iraq, the Bush administration told that :

- Iraq has some links with terrorists cells of Al-Qaeda.
- Iraq is still manufacturing WMD and so is a menace for peace in the worlds.

These're the two major arguments of Bush Administration for Iraq invasion. It's was easy for Afghanistan because reasons were real. By the way, some european countries are currently now in Afghanistan, to help USA in they objective to destroy terrorism. But for Iraq there's some doubts ;

At this time, nobody found WMD in Iraq since demilitarization after 1st Gulf War. Bush administration told that its secret service find some evidence about remilitarization of Iraq, but it was completely wrong. And they falsify some evidences in United Nations debates to form their coalition. Before invasion, USA sent some Special Forces teams and OGA in Iraq to find informations and localize WMD. They found nothing, absolutely nothing. G.W.Bush himself recognize he had wrong about WMD and told it was CIA that lied him. There're some internal problem after that in Bush Administration.

Precisely, this film speak about a team charged to find WMD in Iraq and this film explain there's nothing. They can find nothing and the reason is that a Bush administration's member lye them about their existence. This member of Administration always tell there's some WMD and send them informations about hide place, but finally when they arrive, there's nothing, informations are wrong.

It's the game of "cat and mouses", but there's no mouse... in relation with film it's : "soldiers search WMD...but there's no WMD in Iraq".

Do you understand what I explain ? (Hope it's clear, I tried to do my best in english to explain the reason why this film is anti-war).

Actually, most of war films are anti-war.

All films that are opposite of war speak about Iraq War, not Afghanistan. The american people is tired to make war, because reasons of war in Iraq appeared to be fake (Bush told himself he did some error), and real reasons of war are still confuse. But day after day, some american soldiers died in combat in Iraq and people do not understand their ultimate sacrifice for "no" reason. Do you understand ?


If you'll something else that's anti-war of Iraq, you can see this video song from U2 and Green day "the saints are coming" ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD_0fqvT32g

It's story of Katrina Storm ; when troops are deployed oversea, they are not in country to help american civilian : "US Iraq Troop redeployed to New Orlean", "Troop come hope to help Katrina Victims".

"Not as seen on TV" = Only in dream !

--> all these films, video, song are opposite to Iraq war. They do not critize soldiers, but political member that lie to people about why we go to war.

Well guy, I understand it's politicaly uncorrect to speak about that on forums with americans people...but it's not my opinion I gave you, but the story of "Green Zone" about Iraq's WMD.

I personaly intensively works about Iraq problem for some courses at university and I can tell you I'm objective about that. I do not want to take a position. I well know the opinion in USA about WMD : in june 2004, I needed an interview for a works for the ends of my studies and so I asked an US soldier (Stryker unit) who just came back from Iraq and he told me : "at this time, we didn't find WMD, but I know there're and we'll find them". And you Andrew you just told me "But before the invasion, Iraq sent it's yellowcake to Syria". You've the same point of vue than soldier I interviewed.

We are in 2010 and nobody found WMD in Iraq. Bush administration (Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, David Kay and President Georges W.Bush himself) recognizes secret services did an error about WMD in Iraq. But well, who know the reality ? I'm not here to explain my reality I just tried to explain the message of "Green Zone" against OIF...

I did a chronology of 150 pages with dates about Iraq war since 2001 and there's one particular datum that refer to the story of Green Zone film :

On dec. 7, 2003 a newspaper explained : "an iraqi officer told to the British secret service before the war there's no WMD". It's the event that refers to Magellan in the film.


[--> And Andrew, if you want my opinion : we found no WMD in Iraq and they aren't in Syria. By the way if they were, why aren't american troops deployed in Syria too. It's also a country who help terrorists and a danger for the peace...?!]

Today war movies have gotten so realistic. The war always have been negative thing and the movies portrayed exactly as it is therefore they are anti-war. If you were a director and you want to make realistic movie about war, you'd have to include scenes of US soldiers dying and a lot of blood. Even though it is NOT your intentional to make it an anti-war movie, the viewers would still see the horrors of war and all negatives about it. It's simple as that.

Hey guy, when you're a producer you can be more intelligent than show dead faces of soldiers to be anti-war... but this sort of film with soldiers dying and a lot of blood will be censured, and it's absolutely not that sort of things the american people want to see. If you'll your film have some success : do not be opposed to army (and so do not show dead soldiers), but critizices politian's management of war ! That's I think the opinion of Green Zone producer.

P-E wrote:

[And Andrew, if you want my opinion : we found no WMD in Iraq and they aren't in Syria. By the way if they were, why aren't american troops deployed in Syria too. It's also a country who help terrorists and a danger for the peace...?!]

The same reason we don't have troops in Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, and a few others.

AndrewA74 wrote:The same reason we don't have troops in Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, and a few others.

which reason(s) ? So well, please explain me (I'm curious) why aren't american troops deployed in Syria, Iran and North Korea ? And why Iraq and not one of these countries ?




ps : do not close this topic, it'll be stupid ! We're in general discussion section and I think it's interesting to have the opinion of american people and european people in comparison about Iraq War. It's a controversed war, but it's interesting to have all opinion, not only our own opinion !

For my opinion, I love the film "Green Zone". Actors are good and story is well find. And why spoke about OIF in "Green zone" topic ? because for me this film shows the controversy about Iraq War !

P-E,
Let me start by saying, I've never seen this movie. And yes, most movies are anti-war simply because very few people are pro-war, as war is a very bad, but sometimes necassary action.

Those countries that we don't have troops in, the reason (I believe) is that our Government (The Obama Administration) is very hesitant to call out other nations in wrong doings and lies.

Iran - Supplies Terrorists with Funds, Arms, Training, etc. and has gone nuclear with one goal; destroy Israel

North Korea - Has gone nuclear and has made unprovoked attacks on South Korean vessels, property, etc.

China - Supplies North Korea (I believe they do) with arms, food, etc. Plus, they are a communist country

Russia - I believe they are supporting terrorist organizations and still are a very dark entity in the World Stage

Pakistan - While the Government is officially pro-west, evidence has come about that many head people in the Pakistani Government are supporting the Taliban, and evidence can suggest that Pakistan refuses to act on credible where-abouts of Osama bin Laden

Take my opinion for what it is worth, only .02 cents!

By the way, in my estimation of the Iraq War, we are without a very reachable goal. The Iraqi forces are prone to corruption (as many of the insurgents are). I believe the invasion was justified, necassary, and the way we carried it out was acceptable. But as for what we are doing there now, I am not sure of what to do now. We are in a catch 22. If we leave now, the country has a good chance of falling back into enemy hands, possible civil war, and US soldiers would have died in vain. BUT, if we stay longer, more US soldiers die, and the Iraqi forces may become better equipped, and trained.

I do not consider your opinion as a 2 cents ! Every has his own opinion, and it's interesting to confront our idea. I'm European, you're american and our opinion are completely different by some way. That's interesting for me (I'm absolutely not pro or against USA, I just want to open my mint !)! So thanks for your response !

I sent you a long response by pm, I think it'll be better. It's interesting, but I do not think other persons are interested by our discussion about Iraq

For the film, I think you'd better see it. Good action film !

As far as WMD in Iraq.....how long did the US threaten to invade Iraq before they actually did? A LONG TIME. Plenty of time for the Iraqi's to move, hide, or destroy them. One of my dad's former students was in a Marine NBC unit and part of his job was to hunt down WMD during the initial invasion. He said that they found plenty of chemicals stored right next to each other that could have been used to make WMD. HOWEVER...they weren't mixed together, so they couldn't count them as WMD's.

I think that Iraq did have WMD's, but got rid of them prior to the invasion. Where did they go? I'm betting Syria. If you read "Thunder Run" by David Zucchino, the 3rd ID fought MANY Syrian mercenaries that were hired by the Iraqi Govt. to fight the US led invasion. Seems to me that Iraq and Syria had a very close relationship. Is that proof positive that Iraq gave Syria it's WMD's? Nope...but it is certainly a good possiblity.

Al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups have had an EXCELLENT propaganda machine in place ever since hostilities between them and the US started. Much of their propaganda was spread by Al-Jazeera and numerous other media outlets parroted back what was said without checking the facts. It is no secret that most of the media worldwide is extremely liberal. They are bitterly anti-US and anti-Israel. Any chance these outlets got to make the US look bad...they did.

Furthermore, how many times did Iraq kick out weapons inspectors ever since the 1991 UN resolution? MANY MANY TIMES! Iraq was in violation of the UN mandate. Iraq was told numerous times that they could face posssible military action if they didn't comply.

I think that the European view of the Iraq invasion will ALWAYS be contrary to the US view.

There's well european countries that had the same view than US, as by example UK and Italy, but they finally go out of Iraq because of controversy with their respective people. In UK, they completely change their opinion about Iraq war ! For WMD, it make me laugh because we have absolutely not the same point of view. For me there's no WMD since the demilitarization after Desert Storm in 1991. Yes, Saddam violates numerous time the UN mandates, but I think not about WMD but well about humanitarian aids. After desert Storm, Iraq's WMD were intensively guarded by UN and USA.

USA sent specials forces since september 2002 to search them in Iraq. They found nothing. USA sent OGA in Iraq, also to search them ; they found nothing. Inspector of UN were sent there , they found nothing. In the beginning of Iraq invasion, a team leaded by David Kay was charged to research WMD (as on 'Green Zone' film), the team found nothing and David Kay resigned himself telling there's no WMD in Iraq. Condolezza Rice admit secret service made an error about WMD, and President Bush do the same and asked a investigation about responsabilities of secret services. And when you read secret services reports before OIF, they clearly tell there's no evidence Iraq had WMD programm and only a british secret service report speak about them. Others reports from CIA tell there's only anecdotic link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but nothing serious.

And guy, USA aren't stupid, some troops were deployed to search WMD, and it's clear they were watching borders or Iraq...so how can we tell WMD were sent in Syria just before invasion, as if US secret and military services (during Southern Watch and Northern Watch operations by example) were unable to keep an eye on Iraq's weapon program... ? Përsonaly, I can't imagine it...

For Syrian mercenaries, yes certainly. But guys, there're also some palestinian, lebanese and some other nationalities from some muslim community. There're also european guys and american citizens that were there to fight against coalition forces. Syrian is a border country of Iraq, that's the reason why there's probably more mercenaries than other nationality.

I understand you as if you told me "you're not with us in Iraq, so we are ennemies !". But guys, world press is not against USA. Let me explain : it's depend the subject ! Let me explain. For 911 attempts, do you think majorities of other countries laught and tell "well done" ?! By the way, if you think that you're 100% wrong. I well remember the date of 11 september 2001. It was morning in Belgium when we have heard some informations about attempts. And guys, in my college we put american flags on windows and we respected all victims with 2 minutes of silence. Attempts like that is something nobody want ! For Afghanistan war, there're no doubt, european press and states followed the USA to form a coalition. The reason was louable for Afghanistan, and USA was never critize for that. For Iraq War, it's opposite. Bush administration herself was completely divided on that question. Some persons in USA have the same view about Iraq than some european countries. You consider we are opposite to USA, we are anti-american. But guys, let me tell you it's completely wrong ! See in Afghanistan ; German, French, Belgian (...) troops are deployed to help USA to hunt Bin laden and others terrorists.

You've right we will never have the same opinion about Iraq... but well it's really interesting to have your opinion about that I think ! Thanks.

P-E

"There's well european countries that had the same view than US, as by example UK and Italy, but they finally go out of Iraq because of controversy with their respective people. In UK, they completely change their opinion about Iraq war ! For WMD, it make me laugh because we have absolutely not the same point of view. For me there's no WMD since the demilitarization after Desert Storm in 1991. Yes, Saddam violates numerous time the UN mandates, but I think not about WMD but well about humanitarian aids. After desert Storm, Iraq's WMD were intensively guarded by UN and USA."

Personally, I will believe my dad's friend who was on the ground hunting WMD's before I'll believe any media outlet. He doesn't have an agenda like many of the news outlets.

"USA sent specials forces since september 2002 to search them in Iraq. They found nothing. USA sent OGA in Iraq, also to search them ; they found nothing. Inspector of UN were sent there , they found nothing. In the beginning of Iraq invasion, a team leaded by David Kay was charged to research WMD (as on 'Green Zone' film), the team found nothing and David Kay resigned himself telling there's no WMD in Iraq. Condolezza Rice admit secret service made an error about WMD, and President Bush do the same and asked a investigation about responsabilities of secret services. And when you read secret services reports before OIF, they clearly tell there's no evidence Iraq had WMD programm and only a british secret service report speak about them. Others reports from CIA tell there's only anecdotic link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but nothing serious."

One question.....if Iraq didn't have WMD's, why did they kick out UN Weapons Inspectors so many times? Seems to me like they had something they didn't want people to find.

"And guy, USA aren't stupid, some troops were deployed to search WMD, and it's clear they were watching borders or Iraq...so how can we tell WMD were sent in Syria just before invasion, as if US secret and military services (during Southern Watch and Northern Watch operations by example) were unable to keep an eye on Iraq's weapon program... ? Përsonaly, I can't imagine it... "

Were US troops deployed to search the very pourous border regions between Iraq and Syria before the war? No. Did the US troops check EVERY plane that flew between Iraq and Syria? No. It is not possible to be in one million places at once.

"For Syrian mercenaries, yes certainly. But guys, there're also some palestinian, lebanese and some other nationalities from some muslim community. There're also european guys and american citizens that were there to fight against coalition forces. Syrian is a border country of Iraq, that's the reason why there's probably more mercenaries than other nationality."

Of course their were other Arabic mercenaries that were brought into fight the US. My point was that Iraq had a VERY close relationship with Syria.

"I understand you as if you told me "you're not with us in Iraq, so we are ennemies !". But guys, world press is not against USA. Let me explain : it's depend the subject ! Let me explain. For 911 attempts, do you think majorities of other countries laught and tell "well done" ?! By the way, if you think that you're 100% wrong. I well remember the date of 11 september 2001. It was morning in Belgium when we have heard some informations about attempts. And guys, in my college we put american flags on windows and we respected all victims with 2 minutes of silence. Attempts like that is something nobody want ! For Afghanistan war, there're no doubt, european press and states followed the USA to form a coalition. The reason was louable for Afghanistan, and USA was never critize for that. For Iraq War, it's opposite. Bush administration herself was completely divided on that question. Some persons in USA have the same view about Iraq than some european countries. You consider we are opposite to USA, we are anti-american. But guys, let me tell you it's completely wrong ! See in Afghanistan ; German, French, Belgian (...) troops are deployed to help USA to hunt Bin laden and others terrorists."

Actually, I can remember many times when the media has been extremely critical of US forces in A-Stan and Iraq. The news likes to report the "dramatic" things the US does, like combat operations. However, the news media doesn't report about how the US has built schools, medical clinics, improved roads, and tried to improve the quality of life for the citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan. Sorry....I do think the news media is very biased towards the US. Always reporting bad things, hardly ever reporting anything positive the troops do. Furthermore, I never said or meant to imply that you were anti-American. I know I am extremely thankful for any help the US has gotten from it's European allies in A-Stan or Iraq. Anyone who helps our troops to come back home alive is good in my book.

"You've right we will never have the same opinion about Iraq... but well it's really interesting to have your opinion about that I think ! Thanks."

Yep...we will agree to disagree on the Iraq question. Thanks for keeping it civil. BTW....I do repsect your opinion, even though we don't see things eye to eye.
Arch

Hello Arch, and thanks for your response.

One question.....if Iraq didn't have WMD's, why did they kick out UN Weapons Inspectors so many times? Seems to me like they had something they didn't want people to find.

UN inspectors teams are like a "mobile ambassy" for UN. When diplomatic fail, inspector return home. And when USA began military activities in Iraq, inspectors were forced to go out of Iraq. They didn't end their work because of menace of a future invasion. CIA herself told to the inspectors which facilities they have to inspect in priority. CIA gave informations to inspector to promote the inspectors job in Iraq.

Saddam is a bad boys and he doesn't tolerate a violation of his territory, more over by team of occident men he suspected working for CIA and others OGA. If one day a team of inspectors haves to come in USA, and majorities of inspectors are arabic, do you think USA will open all door of military facilities for inspectors ? No guys, never. Don't make me laugh, it'll be never.

And guy, when Collin Powells goes in UN Security Council, many time he tells "we have evidence Saddam Hussein reopen his military program of WMD". Then he show pictures of military facilities in Iraq and also pictures of mobile laboratories. But guys, in end of 2002 and 2003, Iraq was probably one of the country the most watched by USA. It's impossible Iraq transferates his WMD out of Iraq and in Syria. And what, Powell told "we have some evidence" and where are these evidence now in 2010 ? ...they disapear... They disapear when you enter in Iraq or they never existed ? You can be sure USA would keep a big open eye on them and won't lost their trace. And when Powell resigned, he told "it was lie and I dislike did it".

Of course their were other Arabic mercenaries that were brought into fight the US. My point was that Iraq had a VERY close relationship with Syria.

Sure, as USA and Canada, as France and Belgium,...(well, not Israel and Palestine ).

And special forces were deployed in desert crossing the Syria border to search WMD. When you suspect two border countries like Iraq And Syria have some contacts, do you think one second you won't also keep an eye on Syria? It's a no sense. You can be sure US officials didn't negliged these links.

Were US troops deployed to search the very pourous border regions between Iraq and Syria before the war? No. Did the US troops check EVERY plane that flew between Iraq and Syria? No. It is not possible to be in one million places at once.

After the coalition leave out of Iraq in 1991, UN instaured two "no fly zone" in Iraq. For north and south of Iraq ;



These NFZ were the subject of attention of OSW (operation southern watch) and ONW. See more information about them at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones . USA closely keep an eye on Iraq, not only north and south zones. In these two zones, there's the most majorities of Iraq military facilities.

And in beginning of OIF, in march 2003, Secret service were able to localize Saddam Hussein in Dora Farm. It's only one man, actively guarded by some OGA. But well, Saddam was probably equally researched than WMD's. They were able to localize one man...but not some WMD ? And Saddam isn't an idiot, he was an ace in security measure for his own security. By the way, WMD would be kept by some soldiers and there's always a soldier ready to give you informations about them for some money (as they did to localize and find Saddam in his hole). But Saddam won't tell you : at this datum, I'll be in this palace. We have a date, so do not forget your bombs .

With an interesting $ rewards, you can have all the information you need. That's the reason USA finally find Saddam Hussein. He was "sold" by a friend of his family. So guys, a soldier who is charged to make/guard WMD and has no personal links with Saddam, do you think he would have hesitate to give informations (or precise place) for $ money ? I think not and there were no defector about WMD. Why ?

And you can be sure for the same $ rewards, it's easier for an Iraqi to give informations about WMD or weapons facilities than give informations about Saddam Hussein because of death menace for family and also because of personnal security measures of Saddam Hussein. What I think is that if US secret services were able to localize precisely one man like Saddam who has a "foolproof" security system with money, they can also localize some WMD...but they found nothing !

But well, we turn in round because we'll never agreed each others about Iraq. But well, your "american" arguments are interesting. So if you've a response, I'll read it with pleasure.

P-E

lol

No politics....saw the film on DVD last weekend....very cool film,good story line,and the wife watched it with me ,so that's a double bonus ( only 'cos she likes Matt damon...damn him,and his devilshly good looks )

Bob Woodward (broke the watergate scandal) wrote an exc. series of books, his latest is "Obama's War", but he wrote an earlier book "State of Denial" about the Bush administrations building the case of war with Iraq, an exc book and with all of Woodward's very well documented on his sources for information.

Especially of interest is the whole yellow cake uranium (one of the linchpins for going to war in iraq)boondogle.

It does not paint the Bush administration in a favorable light in this case.

Chris

I agree with you. I read one book of Bob Woodward called "Plan of attack" and he is opposed to Bush administration and his running of Iraq War. If you have the time to read this book, you'll understand the film Green Zone explain what Bob Woodward denounced in his book about Iraq, but some time ago (in 2004 if I well remember) : lack of evidence, hasty decision to go to war & manipulation of media (and by the same time : people).

And it's not in the interest of Bob Woodward to lie because of his reputation. It's one of the most know journalist since the Watergate. He has a place to keep. And because of his statute, he makes him a big circle of relation inside administrations and services and so have access to some informations we haven't. Bob Woodward is more creditable than most of the other journalist like Michael Moore,...

but well, now OIF has officialy ended and Bush Junior was replaced....