REAL Soldiers hate the tv show "over there" [Archive]

View Full Version : REAL Soldiers hate the tv show "over there"

scooter_the_shooter

08-05-2005, 15:27

By M.L. LYKE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A truck tire hits a flagged wire, a roadside bomb explodes, a handsome private with shredded leg screams in agony. In the bloody chaos of the moment, his soldier buddies panic. One pukes.

Stop the cameras! Sir!

Gilbert W. Arias / P-I
In a preview of "Over There" at Camp Murray in Tacoma, 1st Lt. Eva Sovelenko reacts to a scene as Sgt. John Figueroa looks on.

"People don't act like that when an i.e.d. (improvised explosive device) goes off. They make us look like idiots. We're not idiots!" said a first lieutenant previewing "Over There," the new TV series from Steven Bochco ("NYPD Blue," "Hill Street Blues") that debuts tomorrow night on FX cable network. It's set in Iraq, hyped as "true to life" by producers and hailed by critics as "unflinching" and "gut-wrenching."

"Bogus" was the preferred adjective among the eight soldiers -- most of them Iraq vets -- viewing the series pilot last week at Camp Murray, headquarters of the Washington State National Guard in Tacoma.

"Thank God that's over," said a master sergeant as the credits rolled.

The uniformed skeptics dissected the series pilot scene by scene, beginning with the roadside bombing and panicked soldiers. Who, they asked, was pulling security? And what kind of idiot pulls off his helmet after a bombing attack? "In real life, training takes over. Not in Hollywood," said Sgt. Dan Purcell.

The flags on the trip wires got an "F": roadside bombs in Iraq are typically hidden in watermelons, hay stacks, animal carcasses -- not marked for easy viewing. "A flag to mark an i.e.d.? What is that -- like don't land here?"

Truck drivers also got eight thumbs down. "You do not, under any circumstances, pull off on the side of the road. You stop in the middle."

The TV series, filmed in California, follows an Army infantry squad, flashing between soldiers' experiences in-country and the impact of their deployment back home in the States. It's billled as the first war drama built around a U.S. military conflict still in progress, a war with death tolls mounting daily.

Bochco, who co-created the series with Chris Gerolmo ("Mississippi Burning"), has stated in interviews that the show is apolitical. "Ultimately, a young man being shot at in a firefight has absolutely no interest in politics," he told Reuters news service.

But some camo-clad critics at Camp Murray were left wondering just what the message was in "Over There." One said a young soldier who brags about slitting the throat of a child sentry "makes us look like murderers."

Master Sgt. Jeff Clayton complained that cameras deliberately dragged out the death scenes of Iraqi insurgents after a firefight, lingering unnecessarily on the carnage. "It made me sick."

And where, soldiers asked, were the scenes of soldiers building schools, Iraqi kids waving American flags?

The fast-paced premiere is packed with sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll; cool explosions and close-up gore; cussing and wrought emotion. It opens with the soldiers' goodbyes to family and a nervous flight to Iraq. In an instant -- "Yeah, right" -- the new dudes are belly-down in sand in front of a mosque full of insurgents, with two women accidentally trapped in the trenches, one with a big attitude and little common sense.

"I can do it myself!" she yells at a soldier who tries to help her dig a trench. "You deaf soldier?" It's night, she's totally exposed to enemy fire and, when it starts, it's boy-soldier who has to push her head down to save her.

No wonder the men keep asking, "What do we do about the women?"

"I did not like the way the show presents men's opinion of women -- they act like the women were some other species," said Lt. Connie Woodyard, who returned from Iraq earlier this year. "We're not cowards. Women in Iraq are doing amazing things."

The Camp Murray soldiers dismissed the military firefights as "bull---- " ("Where is the air support? Where is the armor support?"), the dialogue as contrived ("It sucked") and plot drivers as pure Hollywood.

In the script, characters are thrown together for the first time. They constantly ask each other to explain nicknames. In real life, soldiers are sent to Iraq in units. "They don't have to ask each other's nicknames. They all know each other."

After one week in-country, the soldier-actors mull life and death and war in eloquent speeches home to loved ones, talking about how war unmasks the monster within. "Nobody is that reflective after one week in-country. It's more like, "Ohmigod, we're in Iraq. Hi. What the hell am I doing here?"

A few scenes passed muster. Heads nodded when a soldier opened up a packet of Taster's Choice freeze-dried and downed the whole thing. Nice detail. Ditto the scene of the earnest soldier describing the horrors of war via computer video e-mail as his adulterous wife is writhing in ecstasy with lover-boy back home.

"But after only a week?" commented one soldier.

"It usually takes at least two," added another.

One scene hit home for the tough audience: an intimate close-up of two African American soldiers talking band-of-brother bonds. Says one: "If you're looking for another fool to risk getting shot to cover your fool behind, I'm right here beside you."

Correct! Sir!

Only one of the camo-clad critics, Sgt. John Figueroa, who is awaiting call-up orders to Afghanistan, said he'd watch it.

"Hey, I'm into Hollywood," he said, shrugging.
Father Knows Best is online now

What I hate is how people are calling this horrible show "so true" and "realistic" :furious3:

And how they are making a show before the war is over :embarassed:

PanzerJaeger

08-05-2005, 15:42

What do you expect from people making money off the hardships of others?

dgfred

08-05-2005, 16:36

I refuse to watch 1 instant of this crap! :furious3:

scooter_the_shooter

08-05-2005, 16:40

I watched the first episode...It was downright disrespectful to the people who are really 'over there'

Idaho

08-05-2005, 16:49

Hollywood in total crap distortion of real events shocker!

Now you know how we feel when we have to sit through Braveheart, The Patriot, that one about the sub in WW2, Patriot Games, er.. and just about everything else.

scooter_the_shooter

08-05-2005, 16:59

Hollywood is turning this into a tv show. Its just like when that :furious3: john wayne was in a vietnam movie during the war :dizzy2:

Es Arkajae

08-05-2005, 17:12

Hey man Green Berets rocked~D

And you can't claim that it criticsed the military in any significant way, it is probably the most pro-US military Vietnam war movie ever made.

Next to 'We Were Soldiers' its probably my favourite Vietnam War movie.

Tricon

08-05-2005, 18:30

This was dreck.
This was really stupid propaganda. Emphasis on stupid.

Crazed Rabbit

08-05-2005, 19:12

Now you know how we feel when we have to sit through Braveheart, The Patriot, that one about the sub in WW2, Patriot Games, er.. and just about everything else.

WHAT?!?! Do you mean to say that the Battle of Stirling bridge was really at a bridge, that the English didn't make a habit of burning occupied churches in the Revolutionary war, that the British actually did something besides serve as the base for D-Day in WWII, and that, in general, Hollywood does not make super-accurate movies?

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. I would have listed something wrong with Patriot Games, but I am not familar enough with the history surrounding it.

Kaiser of Arabia

08-05-2005, 19:34

I won't watch it, well maybe I will, but this is bullcrap.

Laridus Konivaich

08-05-2005, 19:53

Now can we deploy the army against Hollywood??? ~D

PanzerJaeger

08-05-2005, 20:04

I won't watch it, well maybe I will, but this is bullcrap.

Such consistency Caps! ~D

The Stranger

08-05-2005, 20:32

The Stranger

08-05-2005, 20:35

scooter_the_shooter

08-05-2005, 20:38

It was U5761

Crazed Rabbit

08-05-2005, 20:41

I think the means U-571, which had Americans taking over a u-boat in WWII, while apparently in this strange parallel universe he calls reality it was actually British soldiers.

Crazed Rabbit

dgfred

08-05-2005, 20:48

we were soldiers with mel was awesome.

Do you really think so? I thought it was too gung-ho, and not realistic.
Walking around, giving orders, with bullets and mortars hitting everywhere...
I read the book and enjoyed it much better.

dgfred

08-05-2005, 20:54

I'm an American and I thought U-571 was a bad movie. :book:

Same here pal! ~;)

Blodrast

08-05-2005, 21:45

Why do you guys get so worked up about this ? How is this any different from absolutely any other movie ? Movies are not realistic. They never have been. I doubt they will ever be. Why ? Simple, because they would be damn boring, and nobody would pay to watch them.

I have no idea about this particular movie, but, again, I don't see why anybody (soldiers included) would expect it to be any different from any other movie. It's Hollywood, it's entertainment, not reality. That's been the case since - well, for as long as I can remember.

I get utterly and completely bored / pissed off/ mad / disgusted with 99.99% of computer-related stuff that I see in the movies. I've been working with computers for some 15 years or so now, and I get extremely annoyed when they show brilliant hackers breaking into CIA/FBI/choose-your-3digit-acronym in less than 5 minutes, or huge closets with a gazillion blinking lights and beeping constantly ("mainframes") (!!), or mindless tapping on keyboard that produce incredible graphs with a few keys pressed...

And I am equally sure that professional doctors get bored with ER-like movies, and can spot a billion holes in their "realism", and Formula 1 professional drivers get annoyed with car racing movies, and so on, for every profession.

Why ? Because it's not supposed to be real ! It's never meant to be real ! It's a movie ! If you expect realism from it, well, pffffft...

master of the puppets

08-05-2005, 22:13

I think the means U-571, which had Americans taking over a u-boat in WWII, while apparently in this strange parallel universe he calls reality it was actually British soldiers.

uh, i'm an american and i know it was a tommy.

Crazed Rabbit

08-05-2005, 23:41

Well, I was just answering a question.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

08-05-2005, 23:47

I knew it was going to be crap based purely on the fact that it's about a war still in progresss. What are you gonna do? Movies about war are movies with a message. Platoon, for example, is one of my favorite movies. It's not accurate, but it's message is "It would have sucked to be in the Vietnam War." I can buy that.

This, however, is just someone wanting to capitalize on the "New War" as son as possible. There's no message. No skilled directing. No plot or character development. Not even realism. It sucks.
Those were my thoughts, in a nutshell. :bow:

Kaiser of Arabia

08-06-2005, 00:14

Such consistency Caps! ~D
Who knows? If my family watches it I have little choice. I'll fight it though. Evil evil hollyshi...er...wood.

Alexander the Pretty Good

08-06-2005, 02:05

We Were Soldiers is a good movie, though the book is better.

I didn't know that about U-571. It was OK for a movie, but I saw it without the knowledge that it was Brits and not Yanks taking the sub.

I contend that The Patriot was not trying to be historical - more like... an allegory... for the real thing. There were some parts I liked.

I bet you'll all hate me, but I think The Great Escape is one of the best movies ever, even though it overglorifies American involvement.

Hehe. There weren't any Americans in the real deal. But not important! ~D

Samurai Waki

08-06-2005, 03:47

I really dislike the show on every basis, it mocks our soldiers and shows them disrespect. I think the producers, actors, writers, and directors all need to go through formal military training and serve in Iraq for 6-18 months before they can come back here and try to tell the common idiot what it's really like there. Utter trash.

KafirChobee

08-06-2005, 03:52

Real soldiers? I'll bet my ass they love it ... if they are allowed to see it; OVER THERE.

Those that have never served; or never intended to, seem to have this attitude that it is a bloodless conflict. That those, that serve are some kind of gods. That, when they die their mates are not affected, and that those affected are drawn straight to Jesus.

Wake the F' up! plz. This is a TV show, it no further demonstrates the reality of Iraq than does our media. Or, our President.

It does, however, introduce us to the personalities that "might" be there, or not. To venture into the realm that the project might have a hint of truth vs it is all a liberal attempt to tell the truth? Means what?

For me, when I saw it? I had nightmares, I had not had for ... well, a few years anyway (say 20).

Denying that men are being killed for no cause is fine (not by me, but I can accept the ignorance of others), if those accepting the losses intended to join the action. I would, but am way to old - well, lest I was a Reservist. [
which I ain't]

Personally? I don't think there is even one of these noble beasts protesting that would bother to put their butts on the line for "what they believe in".

I did. So, Shut the F'up and do it - write me from Ft Polk - or, shut the f'up.

It is a great show from it's first promo. I could even identify. It is, the same. The same, but different. Nicknames, we all got one .... well, all but me (mine lasted a week - 900).

See, one of the things about "Over There" is that in a sense it introduces us to the new GI. I been outta the military for a century, or atleast since the last war we lost. That, there may now be a program that depicts some (most, probably) of the troops perceptions of the "war on terror" (oh, sorry I know Bushy changed the name .. just can't recall it at the moment - not that one GI gives a crap either) seems fair.

Were the depiction "gungho" or sophmoricly "gee we don't wantto. Well, I would wonder. Don't worry right winger-never-going-to-serve-mycountry, the worm on this program will turn to show how patriotic it is to lose a limb, die or just believe in the falicies that exist. Big oil;for big oil - will never become a real issue. I promise.

What it will become is our modern day "COMBAT" - from the 60's. It will begin as it has and end as the propaganda film for the administation as it was intended.

How does anyone think anyhing could be approved for TV otherwise in todays atmosphere of political denial?

Gawain of Orkeny

08-06-2005, 07:09

Slyspy

08-08-2005, 01:22

I don't know what you guys were expecting? Did you watch "24" believing it to be a documentary?

The only really good "war movie" I've seen was actually the TV show "Band of Brothers". I don't know about realism, but it got the balance right I think.

I do find the idea of a series based on a current conflict to be slightly disrespectful and distasteful. Though of course technically it was never a war and it has already been won. Apparently.

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 01:43

I would never watch it. I thought it would be quite stupid to be making a show about a war that is still going on, plus I prefer less time periods for war movies (preferably very very less recent).
I did like Band of Brothers. That was good.

Ja'chyra

08-08-2005, 11:46

Lol, as if Hollywood would ever produce anything realistic. The only thing that bugs me is the "Based on real events" title, shouldn't that be "Loosely based on real events". ~D

monkian

08-08-2005, 13:22

KafirChobee

08-09-2005, 17:45

Its strange Kafir that this article is about real soldiers who have actually served in Iraq saying its a bunch of crap. But of course your memories of 30 years ago are better than theirs . What the hell do they know? I still have nightmares and this show is just one more of them.

Lets wait for ALL the verdicts to come in from the troops. Others have said its (the show's) advisors got alot wrong, but the general gist is close, or dead on. It's like the nickname thing, nearly all of us had one (those that went across the pond especially). The actions depicted maybe a bit (more so) melodramatic - but, that is Hollywood and always has been. It's like when Leon Uris' book (and then movie) "BattleCry" came out. The critics hated them - the public (and former Marines) loved them. Go figure.

Tacky? To have a show depicting an on going war? Hmmm, guess all those films (propaganda mostly) made during WWII (newsreels too) and Korea, weren't really about on going conflicts either. During 'nam, it was mostly WWII gender films and TV shows (Combat, 12 O'clock High, Rat Patrol, etc) that fed us our patriotic fervor. 'Nam, was like a huge car crash with a cop waving everyone past "Nothing happening here, move on" - and aside from a few books, "Coward" and "M Company", it was pretty quiet from Hollywood (as concerned the 'nam). I think (occasionally), it was because of the numbing affect the casualties had on all of us, and that no one understood it, or how to depict it. 'Til later. 'Til the vets could absorb what had happened to them, for them to attempt to describe their emotions and their personal nightmares. "A Rumor of War", was the first real attempt (book and film) to do so, imo. Others followed.
Take for example, Apocalypse Now, it was not a depiction of reality (or meant to be a "true story") - but an allegory of events - the river being a tour of duty, etc. It is one of those films one either hates, or likes.
Also, remember, 'nam was on the 6 O'clock news nightly. What more could be said?

Films rarely depict the absolute truth - Patton, MacArthur, Hamburger Hill, Pork Chop Hill, etcetera. They add, twist, omit, and generally make-up things to keep something interesting and to show a general view of events - versus going through the entire boring (lengthy explanations of the why and wherefor of an affair) scenario of each and every moment that occurred.

This show, is no better or worse for it. Expect the occasional (hopefully not frequent) blunder. But, for vets to say - "that's not how it's done", though it maybe true today - it may not have been yesterday.

For example, any 'nam vet will tell you that when on a mission and the group, be it squad or battallion, took a break they put out flanking guards to protect themselves. But, when we first got "over there" some commanders had no respect for where they were or even that they were in a real war. One Army company was nearly wiped out in 65' because the leaders (battallion on down) didn't grasp what they were doing, or that they were really in the pucky. It took an incident like that, and those that followed, for the officers and men to change their method of operendi - to grow with the flow, to learn from their enemy, and to adjust to them. Imagine, not putting out flankers. Gah!

It is the same in Iraq, as in all warfare. Those that adjust the best, win. Those that stay stagnent in their philosophy (military) lose.

Did trucks pull to the side of the road - ever - in Iraq? You bet, they didn't know any better. Everything is a learning process. Everything.

:bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-09-2005, 17:57

Did trucks pull to the side of the road - ever - in Iraq? You bet, they didn't know any better.

Hell we were told back in Nam never to do that. ~:confused:

Redleg

08-09-2005, 18:42

Did trucks pull to the side of the road - ever - in Iraq? You bet, they didn't know any better. Everything is a learning process. Everything.

:bow:

However military training for convoys that are ambushed for the last 15 years - from personal experience - is that you never stop on the side of the road, and never stop unless you have no choice. If you stop you immediately get out and pull security. For instance the Driver goes to the left side of the truck the TC goes to the right.

How much training and experience does the army have on this. Every unit that has been to Somilia, Bosnia, Kosovo, the NTC, the JRTC have had this training.

Come on Kafir don't pull crap out of your ass.

KafirChobee

08-10-2005, 06:31

Redleg

08-10-2005, 12:28

Ya know what? Not all the troops that were sent to iraq, were real army. Alot of them were (are) Reserve and NG's. No doubt, they were given the course on never pull off the side of the road. But, we are talking about civilian minds going to war, NOT professional soldiers.

Yes indeed they were given the training - both during their annual training and most likely as part of the train up before they departed. I should know about their annual training since I spent my last three years in the army training them. Two of the National Guard Artillery Battalions which were part of the eSIB that have been deployed have gone - and returned - and from all reports I have seen of their performance they performed as well as any other unit that has been deployed.

You can spout the doctrine, but must accept the players as being outside of it. It is one thing to be told how to react - it is an entirely different animal to over come being a civilian in a warzone. Whether one wears kaki or not.

Training takes over in wartime. Its more then doctrine - its an actual fact. If your training is poor prior to war - your performance will be poor. Many NG and Reserve units were better trained then what you seem to think. What you are spouting here concerns individual performance - and is absolutely true - however it only happens in whole units (platoon and above) when they are badly led.

To presuppose that all personnel are "perfectly" trained, and have or will adhere to their training, versus their civilian instinct - assumes that the military is absolutely able to train every individual into a killing machine. A robotic Audie Murphy, John Wayne, Rambo, god bless you where ever you are Chesty P. It simply ain't that simple.

LOL - and to assume that the individual soldier was not trained, which is untrue and I suspect you know it. The convoys in the TV show is not an individual but is a unit. Units function primarily the way they are trained, unless they are very poorly trained or led.

Don't spout your hateful demonizeing crap at me Kafir. Which is exactly what the last sentence was. Your experience in Vietnam was completely different from the trained military that went to Desert Storm, and my experience was completely different from what is happening today. However you want to completely discount the last 20 years of experience, and spout demonizing nonsense. Yea - get real.

To argue that this is what is taught, and this is what they do? Please. We all three know better. We all three probably lost friends doing the wrong thing, be it going after a lost cause (wounded man in the open) or simply being themselves and standing up when they shouldn't have. It hurts, but it happens (ed).

Yep lots of people do the wrong thing in combat - but not whole units. Individuals yes - whole units only do things completely wrong when they are badly led. If you can not tell the difference - well that is your problem not mine.

Training being what it is, is simply that ... training. A friend of mines (HS, to today) Dad once told us a story about how his convoy (truck - RedBall Express) was straiffed. He and his buddy got the H' outta their trucks and dove beneath one of them. After it was all over, they looked in the back of the truck - it was all high explosives. Dumb luck. Dumb, anyway. Point is, he learned never to hide beneath a truck ... ever.

Yep and military training states you harribone and get the hell out of the truck and go to the side of it. Practiced many times myself.

And, it is as simple as that. Instinct, civilain especially, is hard to overcome. Also, regardless, it sneaks back in on you occassionally.
:bow:

Yes for the individual - however it only occurs for a complete unit when it is badly led - not wholesale like the TV show "Over There" assumes. Been in combat - scared the completely crap out of me - but my performance and the performance of my unit was in line with how we trained. Image that.

KafirChobee

08-12-2005, 02:31

Not sure what demonizing crap, I spouted. But, the Over There scene that had a truck backing up over a mine seemed a stretch. It could have been done better. After all most of our casualties since the end of hostilities (remember "Mission Accomplished") have been from road side bombs and car bombs set off as they pull along side a humvee or truck.

Regardless of that, my points were valid. I not once referred to leadership as being an issue, but spoke of indiviual lapses in judgement or training. It is absolutely true that with the advent of the "Powell Doctrine" of training and military procedure our troops are more skilled at their fare than at any time pevious (even though that doctrine has now been shelved for the Rumsfield one). Troops get tired, and they make mistakes. It is not so much a matter of leadership as it is troops rotation and awareness.

As for 'nam - as I recall, roads were avoided by armor when ever possible. As for convoys, if a truck or lead vehicle hit a mine it was in the middle of the road - not on the side of it. By the time that happened it generally meant they were deep in an ambush. Today, it's different - the person (s) initiating the explosive could be a mile away using a cell phone to set it off.

Iraq, is a whole new game. With new rules (as in no rules, but different modes of operendi), but just as determined an enemy. This is a Jihad, you know?

I did not intend to be critical of our soldiers (below the rank of say Major), or to even critize the training. I do stand by the statement that tired men make mistakes. Training or not.

Xiahou

08-12-2005, 02:52

The problem is that, when you sign up for the National Gaurd, you aren't signing up to go fight foreign wars. You're the National Gaurd, not the National Shillelagh.
The National Guard has been deployed in foreign wars since its creation. WW1, WW2, Korea, Desert Storm...

Redleg

08-12-2005, 03:15

I did not intend to be critical of our soldiers (below the rank of say Major), or to even critize the training. I do stand by the statement that tired men make mistakes. Training or not.

Yes indeed Kafir Tired men do make mistakes - however whole units without the leadership getting the men back into task - doesn't happen unless the unit is badly led. The part of the show that I watch did not give that impression about the unit - so I find the fault with the TV show for that reason.

Neither does the army want automats for soldiers - it was thinking men and women to evalute and preform the tasks that they are assigned and look for ways to overcome any adverse conditions.

What I don't like - and I only saw the first 1/2 hour because that was all the so called "realism" that I could stomach without bitching about how the show got it all wrong based upon the military I served in. Its one thing to protray the events in a hollywood setting and say its based upon real events - but to say the TV show is realistic is a big stretch and parts of the show to a big dis-service to the level of training and comptence of the average soldier.

But what the hell maybe in a few shows - they will begin to get the "realism" more in line to how war really is.

Long hours of absolute boredom - punctuated with several seconds or minutes of intense fear, and everyother human emotion that you can think of.

But even when your tried - and this is from experience - certain aspects of your training automatically stay with you.

Kongamato

08-12-2005, 05:59

I'd just like to state that I think a lot of TV these days is aiming to show an "amplified reality". The idea is to take areas of life that Joe La-Z-Boy never experiences firsthand and make them seem unnaturally chaotic and appalling. All you need to do is be able to show more violence, sex, and profanity than the other shows and you'll be crowned "most realistic". Anything can happen in reality, so if we show everything on the show, the show is reality, is it not?

Damn it, I wish I could understand logic. Anyway, shows like ESPN's Playmakers, The Shield, and apparently this new show go to the absolute boundaries of censorship to shock the viewer into thinking "wow, the world outside the house is really rough". Can the average viewer prove otherwise? With the pessimism you get from the news, it becomes easy to believe that the real world is like this. And maybe it is, I don't know. However, I do know when a show is feeding off of my prejudices and paranoia. It does provide some great entertainment, however. As unrealistic as it is, The Shield is my favorite show at the moment.

KafirChobee

08-13-2005, 06:39

Red, its a f'n TV show - it has less to do with reality than it does to do with the attempt to stimulate emotion ... for emotions sake,

Granted, it is not acurate to the point of infinity. It is not the intent. There maybe no intent, except to make the viewers think about the how .. the way ... the means and the way for that our boys are there - giving their lives.

Maybe, it is not even that. Maybe it is just the demented entertainment demanded by peeps that watch such things as "Fear Factor", Big Brother, Survival, and Oprah.

Bottom line is it is a TV program. It will soon be a propagand one ... employed by one side or another. It ain't about reality, so much as it is about itself. We been there before, and will be again. This one is no worse than those that perceeded it. "China Beach", "Patrol" (er, maybe 3 shows?), or the first "over there" ... about 'nam.

See, personally (as I have always admitted) I only spent a few weeks in 'nam. I got hit, got sent to a recovery area and ended up finishing my time in Korea (volunteered for 'nam again upon my completion and was denied - long story).

Now, in Korea we were dumbys. Lotsa trucks pulled to the side of a road. j/k.

:balloon2:

Redleg

08-13-2005, 06:53

Red, its a f'n TV show - it has less to do with reality than it does to do with the attempt to stimulate emotion ... for emotions sake,

One that claims to be a "realistic" protrayal of the events. So when something claims that - one can criticize the efforts of such a show.

Granted, it is not acurate to the point of infinity. It is not the intent. There maybe no intent, except to make the viewers think about the how .. the way ... the means and the way for that our boys are there - giving their lives.

They the producers, actors, and director should be intellectually honest enough to do it right. Especially given these are the knuckleheads claiming what that they are.

Maybe, it is not even that. Maybe it is just the demented entertainment demanded by peeps that watch such things as "Fear Factor", Big Brother, Survival, and Oprah.

You most likely hit the nail on the head with this comment. Most people have absolutely no idea what happens in combat.

Bottom line is it is a TV program. It will soon be a propagand one ... employed by one side or another. It ain't about reality, so much as it is about itself. We been there before, and will be again. This one is no worse than those that perceeded it. "China Beach", "Patrol" (er, maybe 3 shows?), or the first "over there" ... about 'nam. Guess what - I watched each show about once before I realized how full of crap each one was - and never watched them again.

See, personally (as I have always admitted) I only spent a few weeks in 'nam. I got hit, got sent to a recovery area and ended up finishing my time in Korea (volunteered for 'nam again upon my completion and was denied - long story).

Just like I have always admitted I have only served in Desert Storm for my combat tour - and it was really only 100 hours of real fight.

Now, in Korea we were dumbys. Lotsa trucks pulled to the side of a road. j/k.

:balloon2:

You should of seen the traffic when I was there in 1994 - you could not pull over - you always had to keep going until you got to the Firing Position and occuied the training ground.