Escape to the Movies: Act of Valor

[Treblaine]

Propaganda, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that it doesn't look like it is what makes it so effective.

Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propaganda

This movie is distinctly apolitical as movie-bob and others point out. It presents an as-authentic-as-possible depiction of the method of war. No idealisation to trick people into joining up, it even uses live ammunition as much as possible and doesn't hide or sanitize the human cost.

To call this film propaganda is really being illiterate on the use of that word.

Just because it DOESN'T have a political commentary that War-X should be abandoned or FAILS to vilify a military organisation doesn't make it propaganda, as if there is some responsibility to make negative political commentary. A lot of people seem to object to this film more because it is NOT propaganda... not propaganda in the sense that Oliver Stone's Platoon propaganda of isolationist political message.

Well, you could argue that by portraying the SEALs as totally cool heroes that are making sure you don't have to live in fear from evil Russians/Mexicans/Arabs, the film does promote a political cause, especially since Navy officials openly describe it as a way to get new recruits for the SEALs

Rear Adm. Denny Moynihan, of the Navy Office of Information in Washington, explained that every four years the Defense Department "looks at itself and says, 'What is it that you need to be moving forward, and where do you think you are?' " He added, "For the Navy and the SEAL community it was, 'Hey, you need 500 more SEALs' and that launched a series of initiatives to try to attract more people. This film was one of those initiatives."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/movies/act-of-valor-film-with-active-duty-members-of-navy-seals.html?_r=1
As for the biased and misleading part: Biased, certainly, since everything is. I'm not gonna comment on misleading because the ensuing discussion won't help anyone.

It's not like there is any serious political debate on the legitimacy of Mexican Drug Cartels. You are being dishonest to say this film vilifies Mexicans and Mexico in general rather than extremely violent drug dealers who right now are responsible for MASS GRAVES of people they have murdered in cold blooded executions. Same for the other groups depicted, it is NOT racial or nationalistic, it's following the bad guys that both sides of the political spectrum oppose.

Recruitment =/= propaganda

Recruitment is not automatically propaganda. I have given you the definition and it doesn't fit. It would be propaganda to recruite, but only by casting some dashing actors to sugar coat war as some fun harmless adventure, or to somehow depict it as something it is not, to deceive people into recruiting AS THEY DID in previous wars. This film does NOT do that.

"Biased, certainly, since everything is."

If everything is, then everything is propaganda. What hollow logic.

"I'm not gonna comment on misleading because the ensuing discussion won't help anyone."

Oh, I'm happy to comment: it isn't misleading

Bottom line
How can a military function if it is socially or morally unacceptable to EVER show any aspect of the military in a positive light in the public sphere? It is gross and slanderous use of the term "propaganda" to label this film such. Label it a bad film, label it a Recruitment Film even, but it's wrong to label it propaganda as that would be either dishonest or ignorantly illiterate.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Act of Valor

MovieBob aims his attention at the epic Navy recruiting film Act of Valor.

Watch Video

Good, fair treatment of the material. I see this movie as an experiment. It's not meant to propagandize (ie, sway the opinions of the masses) as much as it's meant to appeal to already-fans of this kind of thing, and see if it takes.

And on another hand, I really have no problem with the military working to ensure a mostly-positive spin in Hollywood appearances. What they do is usually not very action-filled, and when it is, it's not "fun" or "pretty." It's flat-out ugly. They're going to get plenty of negative spin because what they do involves killing people. (In addition to the statisticallyextremely uncommon scandalous stuff we hear so much about lately.)

An army has to do awful things, and the public needs men able and willing to do those things. Often, we only hear/talk/care about what they do when it goes wrong. Really think about this:

1. We have a military so that we don't all have to deal with all of the awful things they have to do.
2. Because we don't have to deal with those awful things, we forget about them... or at least lose perspective on them.
3. We make unreasonable demands about how they do/don't do those awful things we originally tasked them to do.
4. They don't get it done, so it either doesn't get done or it falls back to us.
5. We decide to have a military, so that we don't have to deal... and so on.

Running PR for an organization like the military must be an absolute nightmare, because even on the best days, you're an organization whose job it is to kill lots of people(or at least stay prepared to do so). Seems to be that job would be impossible without a little "hero porn" and a bit of preemptive damage control.

Having served in the military (US Army) myself, I can tell you that the real job of the military is actually the complete opposite. The job of the military is actually to save lives, and to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic ...first and foremost.

Yes the military does teach you to kill and most of my combat training centered around becoming more efficient at it, but the real goal of the military is always defense first, and to kill only as a last resort.

That description of the army is fine for the Pakistani army or the Indian army or the Russian army or the Mexican army or the Afghan army or any that is not involved in invading anyone for no good reason. How are you "defending" your people by invading Afghanistan and forcing my country into the war, threatning to "bomb Pakistan to the stone age" according to our former President(who I still support)? Even what the IDF does can be considered self defence(this coming from a Muslim) but not what you do.
Your army(I really want to use an insult but I am afraid that it would get me included in the list of "missing people" in my country) killed 25 of my country's soldiers, while they helped you fight your war,and don't even appologize properly and then you demand we open your supply route.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

snip...

It's not like there is any serious political debate on the legitimacy of Mexican Drug Cartels. You are being dishonest to say this film vilifies Mexicans and Mexico in general rather than extremely violent drug dealers who right now are responsible for MASS GRAVES of people they have murdered in cold blooded executions. Same for the other groups depicted, it is NOT racial or nationalistic, it's following the bad guys that both sides of the political spectrum oppose.

Fighting the Mexican cartels is solely the job of the Mexican army and concerned authorities of Mexico. It is none of your buisness. Your only job is to keep them from immigrating legalally or otherwise.

 

[Jegsimmons]

i wonder how many people on this site will criticize the movie only on a political standpoint and not an non-objective point like bob did?

and as much as people claim this is propaganda for the military gun-ho side, think about this: these movies come out once every few years if at all, the anti-war, west is wrong, and military is bad movie comes out almost every year.
Avatar
Platoon
Generation Kill
Shooter
ect.

And frankly i want to see a 'john Wayne style green beret' movie to balance all this shit out. Its annoying. At least when the Pro troop movie is out, its at least somewhat subtle and less preachy, aside from this movie we have only like, Black Hawk Down and the green berets.

Yes, Generation Kill and its hardline anti-military statements

not sure what you are getting at because that is not a complete sentence.

I think he's trying to say that Generation Kill isn't really anti-war. To me it just showed us what it was like to be on the front lines during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

if thats the case i disagree entirely because from what i gather the guy who wrote the book (who work for rolling stone which i would call less of a news organization than what people claim fox news is) took some liberties with the story.
and frankly i havent found much to the mini series authenticity besides people and places.

Apart from the fact that "Marine commanders [...] encouraged the officers of 1st Reconnaissance to read the book and the articles to get an insight into the reality of war."
Or at least that's what the liberal media news site wikipedia (actually the New York Times) claims.
I wouldn't know about you but at least I ended up with more respect for the soldiers in Iraq (if not for the war) after watching the series than I had before.
PS:This thread is derailing LIKE A BOSS

i dont trust new york times, they do have a noticeable bias.

As opposed to fox news...

dont really care about any cable news either. i use various internet sources.

 

[Simonism451]

It's not like there is any serious political debate on the legitimacy of Mexican Drug Cartels. You are being dishonest to say this film vilifies Mexicans and Mexico in general rather than extremely violent drug dealers who right now are responsible for MASS GRAVES of people they have murdered in cold blooded executions. Same for the other groups depicted, it is NOT racial or nationalistic, it's following the bad guys that both sides of the political spectrum oppose.

Recruitment =/= propaganda

Recruitment is not automatically propaganda. I have given you the definition and it doesn't fit. It would be propaganda to recruite, but only by casting some dashing actors to sugar coat war as some fun harmless adventure, or to somehow depict it as something it is not, to deceive people into recruiting AS THEY DID in previous wars. This film does NOT do that.

"Biased, certainly, since everything is."

If everything is, then everything is propaganda. What hollow logic.

"I'm not gonna comment on misleading because the ensuing discussion won't help anyone."

Oh, I'm happy to comment: it isn't misleading

Bottom line
How can a military function if it is socially or morally unacceptable to EVER show any aspect of the military in a positive light in the public sphere? It is gross and slanderous use of the term "propaganda" to label this film such. Label it a bad film, label it a Recruitment Film even, but it's wrong to label it propaganda as that would be either dishonest or ignorantly illiterate.

I'll take back my somewhat shoddy remark about racist themes but I still say: Act of Valor is objectively viewed propaganda in the same way Platoon is propaganda

Propaganda as defined by Richard Allan Nelson:
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism?the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Models

 

[Simonism451]

i wonder how many people on this site will criticize the movie only on a political standpoint and not an non-objective point like bob did?

and as much as people claim this is propaganda for the military gun-ho side, think about this: these movies come out once every few years if at all, the anti-war, west is wrong, and military is bad movie comes out almost every year.
Avatar
Platoon
Generation Kill
Shooter
ect.

And frankly i want to see a 'john Wayne style green beret' movie to balance all this shit out. Its annoying. At least when the Pro troop movie is out, its at least somewhat subtle and less preachy, aside from this movie we have only like, Black Hawk Down and the green berets.

Yes, Generation Kill and its hardline anti-military statements

not sure what you are getting at because that is not a complete sentence.

I think he's trying to say that Generation Kill isn't really anti-war. To me it just showed us what it was like to be on the front lines during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

if thats the case i disagree entirely because from what i gather the guy who wrote the book (who work for rolling stone which i would call less of a news organization than what people claim fox news is) took some liberties with the story.
and frankly i havent found much to the mini series authenticity besides people and places.

Apart from the fact that "Marine commanders [...] encouraged the officers of 1st Reconnaissance to read the book and the articles to get an insight into the reality of war."
Or at least that's what the liberal media news site wikipedia (actually the New York Times) claims.
I wouldn't know about you but at least I ended up with more respect for the soldiers in Iraq (if not for the war) after watching the series than I had before.
PS:This thread is derailing LIKE A BOSS

i dont trust new york times, they do have a noticeable bias.

As opposed to fox news...

dont really care about any cable news either. i use various internet sources.

As opposed to "various internet sources" then...

 

[Treblaine]

snip...

It's not like there is any serious political debate on the legitimacy of Mexican Drug Cartels. You are being dishonest to say this film vilifies Mexicans and Mexico in general rather than extremely violent drug dealers who right now are responsible for MASS GRAVES of people they have murdered in cold blooded executions. Same for the other groups depicted, it is NOT racial or nationalistic, it's following the bad guys that both sides of the political spectrum oppose.

Fighting the Mexican cartels is solely the job of the Mexican army and concerned authorities of Mexico. It is none of your buisness. Your only job is to keep them from immigrating legalally or otherwise.

Haven't Mexican Drug Cartels been operating inside the United States for a while now and committing crimes against the United States, not limited to aiding and abetting terrorists in attempted assassinations of Diplomats on US soil? Did you hear about that assassination attempt of that Saudi Diplomat and their family?

Isn't this film a speculative exploration of that link between these drug cartels and terrorists?

It's not like this is Clear and Present Danger, that being US Special Forces going after drug cartels just because they are drug cartels, but in this scenario because their are in allegiance with terrorists (literally) hell bent on mass murder of US Citizens. This is not some political commentary on the so called War on Drugs (wasn't there a War on Littering once?) but the pretty apolitical stance that if terrorists are in the process of murdering a load of people... hmm... maybe the military should stop them?

There is a lot to be said on the politics of US involvement of drug-enforcement in central and South America but that isn't really the focus of this movie.

 

[Treblaine]

Recruitment =/= propaganda

Recruitment is not automatically propaganda. I have given you the definition and it doesn't fit. It would be propaganda to recruite, but only by casting some dashing actors to sugar coat war as some fun harmless adventure, or to somehow depict it as something it is not, to deceive people into recruiting AS THEY DID in previous wars. This film does NOT do that.

I'll take back my somewhat shoddy remark about racist themes but I still say: Act of Valor is objectively viewed propaganda in the same way Platoon is propaganda

Propaganda as defined by Richard Allan Nelson:
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism?the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Models

Propaganda is a dirty word. It's a dirty word because above all else it implies it doesn't try to reasonably persuade, it tries to trick and manipulate. Playing on people's base emotions and false expectations rather than higher objectives for what is really true. THAT is what most people think of when they think of propaganda, and a minority definition can't change what most people think of when a given word is used.

The fact that this definition of propaganda makes no distinction between being factual or deceptive, between being transparent and being concealing... that makes this a worthless definition. If a someone tried to convince a friend not to make a riasky business decision then he could just counteract that the his jealous friend is just feeding him propaganda, by this definition - so should be ignored. Why is this definition without meaningful differentiation from mealy "persuading"?

What is the test or validity of this definition other than someone posted it on wikipedia?

"A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism"

Utterly worthless part of the definition as it reuses the term they are trying to define. Only useful in the pointless sense of defining its various syntax forms. A flibble organisation employs flibbists for flibbism. Now tell me, what is flibble?

"via mass and direct media channels."

Also worthless part of this definition, as what other channels are there? We know it's media, and media is either mass or direct. DUH!

Is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address a form of propaganda? Is this propaganda:


If it is, then why is propaganda a pejorative? And regardless of its allegedly non-pejorative origins (disseminating Catholic Dogma) it DOES have pejorative use today.

 

[maturin]

It's not like this is Clear and Present Danger, that being US Special Forces going after drug cartels just because they are drug cartels, but in this scenario because their are in allegiance with terrorists (literally) hell bent on mass murder of US Citizens. This is not some political commentary on the so called War on Drugs (wasn't there a War on Littering once?) but the pretty apolitical stance that if terrorists are in the process of murdering a load of people... hmm... maybe the military should stop them?

I agree, it's not really political.

But you have to think about the context of everything. Terrorists sneaking in through the southern border is major talking point in the campaign to secure the border. It's an often-repeated hypothetical scenario that hasn't actually occurred. So far as I know, there's been no announcement of any plot by terrorists to exploit the border situation, or undue concern of one by security agencies. In that sense, it feeds into a sense of threat that has already been used for political purposes.

But I don't think it's a conscious editorial move. It's only natural for a movie about elite defenders of the country to exhibit a worldview that highlights potential threats.

 

[Jegsimmons]

i wonder how many people on this site will criticize the movie only on a political standpoint and not an non-objective point like bob did?

and as much as people claim this is propaganda for the military gun-ho side, think about this: these movies come out once every few years if at all, the anti-war, west is wrong, and military is bad movie comes out almost every year.
Avatar
Platoon
Generation Kill
Shooter
ect.

And frankly i want to see a 'john Wayne style green beret' movie to balance all this shit out. Its annoying. At least when the Pro troop movie is out, its at least somewhat subtle and less preachy, aside from this movie we have only like, Black Hawk Down and the green berets.

Yes, Generation Kill and its hardline anti-military statements

not sure what you are getting at because that is not a complete sentence.

I think he's trying to say that Generation Kill isn't really anti-war. To me it just showed us what it was like to be on the front lines during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

if thats the case i disagree entirely because from what i gather the guy who wrote the book (who work for rolling stone which i would call less of a news organization than what people claim fox news is) took some liberties with the story.
and frankly i havent found much to the mini series authenticity besides people and places.

Apart from the fact that "Marine commanders [...] encouraged the officers of 1st Reconnaissance to read the book and the articles to get an insight into the reality of war."
Or at least that's what the liberal media news site wikipedia (actually the New York Times) claims.
I wouldn't know about you but at least I ended up with more respect for the soldiers in Iraq (if not for the war) after watching the series than I had before.
PS:This thread is derailing LIKE A BOSS

i dont trust new york times, they do have a noticeable bias.

As opposed to fox news...

dont really care about any cable news either. i use various internet sources.

As opposed to "various internet sources" then...

The internet has the advantage of comment sections correcting mistakes and giving detail cable wont, not to mention when you check up on a few of them its easier to piece together whats true or not.

 

[Hat Man]

Did any other non-Americans feel a bit alienated by the near constant praising and apologizing to the army in this video?

 

[Vault Citizen]

Considering the fact that you are a movie critic I doubt anyone would have thought that you would be criticising the field performance of aformentioned soldiers instead of their acting.

Seeing as how you've joined escapist back in 2008, I take the liberty of assuming that you have used internet for more than 3years now. Have you seriously not met enough people on the internet to make such assumptions?

Hell, I wouldnt be surprised if Bob had received death threats with any less silky handed approach.

On reflection you're right and I take back what I said. My apologies.

 

[Vault Citizen]

Posted this by accident when I meant to edit an earlier post. Sorry.

 

[Shagdawg]

Maybe they made the movie because people like the military or think the Navy SEALS are awesome. Just because it's about the military doesn't make it a recruitment ad. Even if it was, becoming a Navy SEAL is ridiculously difficult and the slightest bit of research would tell people not to join the Navy is they only want to be a SEAL.

Most recruitment ads try to get less people to join because when you're in a recession the military gets a huge number of applicants. Great way to get one that pays for itself really, it's like t-shirts where it's advertisement you get paid for.

The deaths of people in the Armed Forces are mourned because they knew they could die and still signed up. It is still something most people wouldn't do.

No, the military is getting too many applications to say most people wouldn't.

Now your comparison of the military and taking drugs is just ridiculous. I enlisted in the Marines in August and leave for Boot in July. I did not join because I want people to think I'm a hero, to make myself feel like a badass, or the money. I joined because I want to be a part of something I feel is important in my life and perhaps learn something about myself.

So social? That doesn't sound like a great reason to join the military, drugs can do the same thing. My point though was that they both have the same risks, while one is treated like it was their responsibility and it was their fault they couldn't hold up the other is acting like they didn't ask to go into a dangerous situation. To begin with, the "important" thing is only important because people say it is, I never really saw any direct impact the military had on anyone.

Now about the Opium fields and harming of others. It isn't the military's job to disrupt their way of life regardless if it's illegal to our government.

Except that's what the military is doing by say going to Afghanistan. The problem however is that this is the military turning back on the morales it swore to protect, we've overthrown governments who helped smuggle drugs in the Latin America so it doesn't seem to out of the box. Not to mention, this merely worsens the herione problem in places like Russia.

It also wasn't our decision for the enemy to blend it's fighters with civilians. Don't blame our military, blame those who use them for cover.

What? Did you ever see the notorious wikileaks video? There the military fires on civilians because of some blurry colorless image i.e. bad intel, and some people would say that it was fine because they, through the horrible camera, looked like they were hostiles? Soldiers are mourned far more than civilians are, but soldiers ask to go to put themselves in those situations, civilians don't and are forced to pull through it, when they get killed the insurgents have no organization to investigate their attacks and the actual heavily funded foreign military does not investigate it too often either opting out to instead cover it up valuing it's own soldiers over civilians.

Weak arguments. No, most people wouldn't willingly join the military. Just saying 'the military is getting too many applications' doesn't really mean anything. It's just a vague argument you're using to defend your bias. And comparing joining the military to taking drugs IS ridiculous. You could use the argument that people join the military for the benefits, social status, etc. and apply it to most any profession (i.e. 'People only become doctors to make money and feel like heroes). Either way its a huge stretch to equate joining the military to taking drugs.

 

[The Thinker]

Humorously, I got one of those "Join the Navy!" ads before this video. I wonder why they have those on this site, anyway. Does the gaming community contain large pool of potential recruits?

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler: snip snip

Recruitment =/= propaganda

Recruitment is not automatically propaganda. I have given you the definition and it doesn't fit. It would be propaganda to recruite, but only by casting some dashing actors to sugar coat war as some fun harmless adventure, or to somehow depict it as something it is not, to deceive people into recruiting AS THEY DID in previous wars. This film does NOT do that.

I'll take back my somewhat shoddy remark about racist themes but I still say: Act of Valor is objectively viewed propaganda in the same way Platoon is propaganda

Propaganda as defined by Richard Allan Nelson:
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism?the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Models

Propaganda is a dirty word. It's a dirty word because above all else it implies it doesn't try to reasonably persuade, it tries to trick and manipulate. Playing on people's base emotions and false expectations rather than higher objectives for what is really true. THAT is what most people think of when they think of propaganda, and a minority definition can't change what most people think of when a given word is used.

The fact that this definition of propaganda makes no distinction between being factual or deceptive, between being transparent and being concealing... that makes this a worthless definition. If a someone tried to convince a friend not to make a riasky business decision then he could just counteract that the his jealous friend is just feeding him propaganda, by this definition - so should be ignored. Why is this definition without meaningful differentiation from mealy "persuading"?

What is the test or validity of this definition other than someone posted it on wikipedia?

"A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism"

Utterly worthless part of the definition as it reuses the term they are trying to define. Only useful in the pointless sense of defining its various syntax forms. A flibble organisation employs flibbists for flibbism. Now tell me, what is flibble?

"via mass and direct media channels."

Also worthless part of this definition, as what other channels are there? We know it's media, and media is either mass or direct. DUH!

Is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address a form of propaganda? Is this propaganda:

If it is, then why is propaganda a pejorative? And regardless of its allegedly non-pejorative origins (disseminating Catholic Dogma) it DOES have pejorative use today.

One can assume as rule of thumb that for something to be propaganda it has to be a concerted effort to influence opinion on a certain issue. It's not a definitive answer, but after re-reading your post a few times I think it is the most fitting one.

For one it does tell us that the Gettysburg Address can be seen as a form of propaganda, as it is part of a larger effort to influence public opinion.
It is less clear whether the speech in the Great Dictator is intended as propaganda, but it easily can serve or be utilised as such, as it is a persuasive piece of rhetoric.

At the end of the day "Propaganda" means exactly the same thing as "Advertising". Social connotation added the idea of propaganda being about social and political concepts.

And as to your actual question of why propaganda is a pejorative term: it is due to all the times it's been done wrong.
Good propaganda is not recognisable as such - it propagates a view that the audience is ready to believe, even if they might not agree with the full implications of the propagated cause.
Bad propaganda, on the other hand, is recognisable as being propaganda. Small wonder the term turned pejorative, when the only examples we are fully aware of are unsuccessfull attempts to sway our opinion.

And to get back to the original topic (by now looming far in the distance): Act of Valor certainly can be used as propaganda. It showcases extremely skilled people performing a job we all have been conditioned to admire from the moment we first heard about the concept of "soldiers". [footnote]Whether said conditioning was fully successful is a personal issue.[/footnote]
But, here comes the big "BUT....": It could also well be used for a whole range of other causes, ranging from "War is Awful" to "the US military is spending too much" to "Watch out when you go hiking near military training areas" and everything in between. It all depends on where, how, and to whom you show it.

 

[gamee-o]

Act of Valor: in a time when wars are turning out to be major fiascoes the US military's last pathetic attempt at making "killing people and breaking their stuff" look cool is a "real" movie. Lame ass recruiting tool.

Moviebob: No matter how much you suck up to the "heroes" they won't make you an honorary member, so next time just save the tail-between-your-legs, self depreciating apologetic bootlicking and do a straight up review.

 

[instantbenz]

Running PR for an organization like the military must be an absolute nightmare, because even on the best days, you're an organization whose job it is to kill lots of people(or at least stay prepared to do so). Seems to be that job would be impossible without a little "hero porn" and a bit of preemptive damage control.

ppl have said you're not right about insinuating how offensive the us military is in comparison to defensive, but come on ppl. this guy is pretty much right. how often does an opposing military force reach us soil? while the military is trained for defense of an invasion, it is not their initial concern. it's just being pawns for the ppl with $ and power ... mostly money now that i think about it.

btw extra points for your use of 'hero porn'

 

[Tanis]

I think it says a lot that half that video consisted of apologetic disclaimers.

Yeah...it was REALLY annoying for him to be suck a...

IDK?
Micheal Bay type.