Steven Spielberg's Munich Asks: "Is The 'War on Terrorism' a Real War?"

Rational Review ^ | January 16, 2006 | J. Neil Schulman

[okie01]

"Is The 'War on Terrorism' a Real War?"

If you have to ask this question, then you're going to lose this war.

[gleeaikin]

An elderly black friend of my recently deceased white husband has been urging me to see Munich. Our 40+ years of marriage was poisoned by my Korea veteran husband's PTSD. Of course, in the early years nobody had heard of post traumatic stress disorder, or understood the alcoholism, drug addiction, depression and other mental disorders that proceeded therefrom.

In greatly abbreviated form,let me say he ventually realized (as our son entered adolescence) that he felt tremendous guilt for bayoneting a young Chinese Communist soldier. His anguished cry was,"I killed somebody's son." Our last 15 years were relatively free of his PTSD. I hope our returning service personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan will get help a lot earlier in their lives. Our son is over there now.

Our friend wants me to see Munich because he feels it will give me a better understanding of the forces that were haunting my husband.

[CBart95]

Spielberg's collossal arrogance allows him the 'free pass" to join join the ranks of former Presidents who thought they had the royal priviledge to define what "is" is.

And in the process, create a wake of ass-kissing worshippers to fawn, prontificate and babble on how wonderful he is while he in fact aids the cause of current terrorists and denies the factual proof of other miscreants' dreadful acts in the recent past.

That he is also Jewish makes this an unbeliveable, almost inconcievable, outrage.

As dreadful as he is however, it is the legions of supporters or apologists who turn a deaf ear and a blind eye on tragedies of this magnitude that make this so dreadful. Thier forefathers stood by as millions of innocent jews were herded into slaughter houses barely three score or so of years ago.

[Johnnyboy2000]

That was an insightful post. I think your husband's friend is correct from what I've heard about the film. My friend who saw the film felt that the film's central theme deals with how far one can justifiably go when fighting a war, specifically a war against terrorists. In other words, when do the ends cease to justify the means. For instance, if we just went off and nuked Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons, would we really be winning? I believe in the war on terror, but I think we must never become as merciless and brutal as our enemies.

Your husband obviously never crossed this line, and was just a soldier doing his job and defending himself. But the fact that he carried this guilt around his entire life shows what wars do to human beings. Wars force people to do things that they would normally consider immoral. An extreme examplke would be the killing millions of Germans and Japanese civilians during WWII. Obviously we had to win the war, and Germany and Japan committed far more evil acts; but it is still difficult for human beings to justify such acts.

I try to justify them myself many times, but it is difficult. It is a lot easier to look back at history and say we had to win the war, but imagine if you were the man flying the Enola Gay. He was haunted for the rest of his life by guilt. That is what people must deal with in war.

I sincerely hope that nobody thinks I'm attacking US policy during WWII. I think ultimately we did what was necessary. I am simply trying to state wars bring out the worst in humanity whether they are justified or not.

You should go see the film, and I hope it helps you understand what your husband was dealing with. The fact he felt guilty shows that he was a good, moral person, who did we he had to do to defend the country, which makes him a hero in my opinion.

[Cindy]

Ditto.

[Johnnyboy2000]

"Worse, Medved reminds me of left-wing blacks such as Harry Belafonte and Dick Gregory who apparently believe Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice lost the melanin in their skin the day they rejected a Marxist worldview. The proper response to both Harry Belafonte's party-line test for being black, and Michael Medved's party-line test for being a good Jew, is a stream of profanity."

I agree with the author here. His comment would apply to your views as well. Just because Speilberg honestly portrayed the Israeli government means he is not a real Jew. I think "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" speak for themselves as to his standing amongst his fellow Jews and as an American. Speilberg's father was on a bomber crew in WWII, so I don't think he was standing by as jews were slaughtered. And no one in modern America has brought more attention to the horrors of the Holocaust than Speilberg. He is also greatly responsible for WWII veterans finally getting their due respect as the Greatest Generation.

[drlevy88]

An atom bomb doesn't care how brutal you are or aren't. It only cares about physics.

Any invasion of Iran would proceed with at least the same amount of circumspection that the current invasion of Iraq did. We would want to crush the bombs not their population. You want brutal, look at WWII.

[CBart95]

Your head is a beehive of confused thinking. Spielberg is a traitor...to his fans and followers...to the industry he has excelled in...but most of all...to the human race.

Focus in the KEY FACT. Only.

[Johnnyboy2000]

"United States when it bombed the German city of Dresden in World War II."


You should correct this to read "Great Britain when it bombed the German city of Dresden in WWII."

The US was not all that involved in the firebombing of Dresden. As far is I know it was an entirely British mission. I also think your article needs a new title. I like the article, but your article lead me to believe that it was going to be some anti-Bush, aunties diatribe, rather than the well thought out piece it was. I don't agree with some of your assertions, but all in all I think you made some good points.

[armymarinedad]

I try to justify them myself many times, but it is difficult

Try applying the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As for me if I wake up tomorrow and find I have decided to embrace radical Islam and become a terrorist, I want to be stopped by any means and with extreme prejudice.

[Johnnyboy2000]

"An atom bomb doesn't care how brutal you are or aren't. It only cares about physics.

Any invasion of Iran would proceed with at least the same amount of circumspection that the current invasion of Iraq did. We would want to crush the bombs not their population. You want brutal, look at WWII."

???

Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not, or you basically missed my point. My point was that war is bad. Who can disagree with that? I didn't say it is never justified. In fact I said it was justified in WWII. I also think I made the point how brutal WWII was.

I also stated that pre-emptively nuking Iran was a bad option. If you disagree with that you should seek some help. And that would crush their population, and would be brutal. I think we should do something about Iran, possibly something militarily. I was simply making the point that moral societies have to draw a line between right and wrong, and used the situation in Iran as a relevant example. Should we annihilate them with our nuclear arsenal at the drop of the hat because they may have nukes in a few years, or should we pursue every other option so it doesn't come to that.

Your comment about an atom bomb only caring about physichs is corny and cliche` at best. It is also a little out of date since no one makes atom bombs anymore because it isn't 1945. Are you going to the sock hop this weekend so that you can do the jitterbug. After that we can go checkout the new Humphrey Bogart movie.

[Johnnyboy2000]

I agree. God bless your children and family.

[agere_contra]

Spielberg made a film to extol the West Jordanians and their murderous attacks on the Jewish people. And the article-writer thinks this film shows him to be an intellectual lightweight?

Plus it was us who bombed Dresden, not the Americans. Quite a timely historical reminder actually: unless we pre-empt Ahmadinijad's genocidal fantasies we will rapidly move into a world of fire-bombed cities.

[agere_contra]

And the article-writer thinks this film shows him to be an intellectual lightweight?

My bad, I meant to say "thinks this film shows him to be an intellectual heavyweight?" So much for speed posting...

[Condor51]

***The US was not all that involved in the firebombing of Dresden. As far is I know it was an entirely British mission.***

In the initial bombing raid of Dresden on 13 February 1945, the RAF used 773 Lancaster Bombers, during the nest two days the USAAF (US Army Air Force) followed up by using 527 bombers. So while the initial planning was by the Brits, 'we' were certainly involved.

The said part is that all the bombing of non military targets (cities) was all because of one off course plane that dropped a load on London during the dead of night.

And if Churchill wasn't always drunk and as such over reacted to the above 'accident', the following would likely have never occurred...

Victims of the Dresden bombings

FYI, Dresden was not defended by AA and as such was completely defenseless. But since it was done by the Victors, it wasn't a War Crime, or "Crime Against Humanity". (funny how those things happen).

[J. Neil Schulman]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Steven Spielberg's Munich Asks: "Is The 'War on Terrorism' a Real War?", Johnnyboy2000 wrote:
"'United States when it bombed the German city of Dresden in World War II.' You should correct this to read Great Britain when it bombed the German city of Dresden in WWII.' The US was not all that involved in the firebombing of Dresden. As far is I know it was an entirely British mission."

It was a combined RAF/USAF mission. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden

[kenavi]

The said (sic) part is that all the bombing of non military targets (cities) was all because of one off course plane that dropped a load on London during the dead of night.

"The Nazi cruise missile was the V-1.It had no navigation system, so aiming was simply a matter of launching it in the direction of the target.

On September 7, 1944, the first A4s, now designated the V-2, were fired at Allied targets. Soon they were raining down primarily on London and Antwerp, and continued to do so until March 27, 1945. The V-2 struck suddenly, giving its victims no time to seek shelter.

Militarily, the V-2 was a disaster for the Germans. Despite the fear it engendered among civilians, it had no effect on the Allies’ ability to attack Germany. It was inaccurate and had an insignificant warhead.

But although ineffective militarily, many paid a high price for V-2 production: an estimated 20,000 prisoners died in the inhumane conditions at Mittlewerk. The V-2 was one of the few weapons where more people died from producing it than died from its use as a weapon.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/Missiles/AP29.htm

And if Churchill wasn't always drunk

As Lincoln said about U.S. Grant: "If that man is a drunk, I want all my Generals to start drinking."

Your post was like a V-1/V-2 missile: launched with plenty of malice, but with little effectiveness.

[Condor51]

****Your post was like a V-1/V-2 missile: launched with plenty of malice, but with little effectiveness.****

"Malice"? Nope, truth. The first bombing of London by the Luftwaffe was an accident - period. Churchill responded by bombing Berlin and it escalated from there.

And comparing Churchill to US Grant is an insult to Grant and drunks everywhere.

Churchill was a drunk, a buffoon and a criminal. And thanks to that maggot and his criminal co conspirator FDR, a couple MILLION American servicemen needlessly died and most of Europe enslaved by Communism.