Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jim A.

ARGO

12 posts in this topic

I just saw the new film Argo, directed and starring Ben Affleck.

My main reason for the seeing the film is because two of the six Americans Affleck's character helps to escape from Iran live in the same town I do, and they're great people. But I also enjoy "international intrigue" stories.

The film was not a masterpiece in my view, but it's worth seeing. It is naturalistic--there's a ton of foul language, for instance--but I thought the elaborate plan for whisking the six American embassy personnel out of the "host" country was very ingenious. The movie also makes me appreciate the fact that I live in this country, not someplace like Iran, where irrationality has been rampant in some percentage of the population (thanks to an extremely irrational belief system, Islam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the new film Argo, directed and starring Ben Affleck.

My main reason for the seeing the film is because two of the six Americans Affleck's character helps to escape from Iran live in the same town I do, and they're great people. But I also enjoy "international intrigue" stories.

The film was not a masterpiece in my view, but it's worth seeing. It is naturalistic--there's a ton of foul language, for instance--but I thought the elaborate plan for whisking the six American embassy personnel out of the "host" country was very ingenious. The movie also makes me appreciate the fact that I live in this country, not someplace like Iran, where irrationality has been rampant in some percentage of the population (thanks to an extremely irrational belief system, Islam).

You would probably find H. Ross Perot's Iranian jailbreak to free two of his people quite engaging. Check it out.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Ruveyn: Is On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett a good chronicle of H. Ross Perot's rescue of his two employees?

To Erik: If you don't see Argo, you're not missing a great masterpiece. But the film does not go out of its way to glorify Jimmy Carter. I will say this, however, since we're talking about him: If there is one American who I would say is responsible for 9/11, it's Jimmy Carter. Back in 1979, when I was a Navy Corpsman stationed at the submarine base in Groton, Connecticut, all of us there were ready to go to war if asked to after we got news of the embassy being over-run. But Carter took forever to do anything militarily, and when he did it was a failure and people were killed (a helicopter crash in a sandstorm, as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong). My thinking back then was: If we don't give Iran an ultimatum and strike back militarily if that country doesn't comply, someday the United States will pay for it. I thought that because by Jimmy Carter's inaction he was essentially telling every terrorist, every terrorism-sponsoring state and every dictatorship around the world that America can be f----- with (after all, only about a month after the seige of the embassy the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Hell, we weren't going to stop them, were we?). On September 11th, 2001, when I saw the second tower being hit by a plane on live television, my immediate thought was: Now we're paying for it. We were paying for the fact that Carter did nothing to punish Iran. Actually, we won't stop paying for it until we do strike back at every terrorist state or state that sponsors terrorism for everything they've ever done to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Ruveyn: Is On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett a good chronicle of H. Ross Perot's rescue of his two employees?

To Erik: If you don't see Argo, you're not missing a great masterpiece. But the film does not go out of its way to glorify Jimmy Carter. I will say this, however, since we're talking about him: If there is one American who I would say is responsible for 9/11, it's Jimmy Carter. Back in 1979, when I was a Navy Corpsman stationed at the submarine base in Groton, Connecticut, all of us there were ready to go to war if asked to after we got news of the embassy being over-run. But Carter took forever to do anything militarily, and when he did it was a failure and people were killed (a helicopter crash in a sandstorm, as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong). My thinking back then was: If we don't give Iran an ultimatum and strike back militarily if that country doesn't comply, someday the United States will pay for it. I thought that because by Jimmy Carter's inaction he was essentially telling every terrorist, every terrorism-sponsoring state and every dictatorship around the world that America can be f----- with (after all, only about a month after the seige of the embassy the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Hell, we weren't going to stop them, were we?). On September 11th, 2001, when I saw the second tower being hit by a plane on live television, my immediate thought was: Now we're paying for it. We were paying for the fact that Carter did nothing to punish Iran. Actually, we won't stop paying for it until we do strike back at every terrorist state or state that sponsors terrorism for everything they've ever done to us.

Hey Shipmate,

In 79 I was an HT stationed aboard the nuclear submarine tender USS Dixon at the San Diego sub base. The Irainian hostage incident caused us to get deployed to the Indian Ocean and I got to spend several intense months sitting in the lagoon at Diego Garcia waiting on the out break of war. We even had a few (un-official) posters up around the ship depicting a mushroom cloud with the words "Hey Iran, Remember Japan" under it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks interesting. Thanks

I just saw the new film Argo, directed and starring Ben Affleck.

My main reason for the seeing the film is because two of the six Americans Affleck's character helps to escape from Iran live in the same town I do, and they're great people. But I also enjoy "international intrigue" stories.

The film was not a masterpiece in my view, but it's worth seeing. It is naturalistic--there's a ton of foul language, for instance--but I thought the elaborate plan for whisking the six American embassy personnel out of the "host" country was very ingenious. The movie also makes me appreciate the fact that I live in this country, not someplace like Iran, where irrationality has been rampant in some percentage of the population (thanks to an extremely irrational belief system, Islam).

Looks interesting. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the movie. It's very good. It shows realistic heroism and cunning on the part of the CIA. It shows in great details the barbarism of the Iranian revolution. Carter and the State Department are portrayed as, at best, incompetents. The acting is very good, the clothing, accessories, etc, is right on target, there's a low grade tension throughout the movie. Again, it's very good.

There's 2mn at the end with a voice over from Carter trying to take some credit from the mission, but the movie makes it clear - voluntarily or not - that it had nothing to do with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the movie. It's very good. It shows realistic heroism and cunning on the part of the CIA. It shows in great details the barbarism of the Iranian revolution. Carter and the State Department are portrayed as, at best, incompetents. The acting is very good, the clothing, accessories, etc, is right on target, there's a low grade tension throughout the movie. Again, it's very good.

There's 2mn at the end with a voice over from Carter trying to take some credit from the mission, but the movie makes it clear - voluntarily or not - that it had nothing to do with him.

I gather that they were slack in crediting the Canadians sufficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another movie showing the disconnect between the doings of our government and doing the right thing.

-Charlie Wilson's War- with Tom Hanks and Julia Robets. To do the right thing Charlie Wilson had to commit multiple serious breaches of U.S. law.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Ruveyn: Is On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett a good chronicle of H. Ross Perot's rescue of his two employees?

To Erik: If you don't see Argo, you're not missing a great masterpiece. But the film does not go out of its way to glorify Jimmy Carter. I will say this, however, since we're talking about him: If there is one American who I would say is responsible for 9/11, it's Jimmy Carter. Back in 1979, when I was a Navy Corpsman stationed at the submarine base in Groton, Connecticut, all of us there were ready to go to war if asked to after we got news of the embassy being over-run. But Carter took forever to do anything militarily, and when he did it was a failure and people were killed (a helicopter crash in a sandstorm, as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong). My thinking back then was: If we don't give Iran an ultimatum and strike back militarily if that country doesn't comply, someday the United States will pay for it. I thought that because by Jimmy Carter's inaction he was essentially telling every terrorist, every terrorism-sponsoring state and every dictatorship around the world that America can be f----- with (after all, only about a month after the seige of the embassy the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Hell, we weren't going to stop them, were we?). On September 11th, 2001, when I saw the second tower being hit by a plane on live television, my immediate thought was: Now we're paying for it. We were paying for the fact that Carter did nothing to punish Iran. Actually, we won't stop paying for it until we do strike back at every terrorist state or state that sponsors terrorism for everything they've ever done to us.

And how will we pay for Obama's inaction in Benghazi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the movie. It's very good. It shows realistic heroism and cunning on the part of the CIA. It shows in great details the barbarism of the Iranian revolution. Carter and the State Department are portrayed as, at best, incompetents. The acting is very good, the clothing, accessories, etc, is right on target, there's a low grade tension throughout the movie. Again, it's very good.

There's 2mn at the end with a voice over from Carter trying to take some credit from the mission, but the movie makes it clear - voluntarily or not - that it had nothing to do with him.

I gather that they were slack in crediting the Canadians sufficiently.

Not at all. The Canadian ambassador and his wife are feature prominently and their virtue and personnal courage are clearly displayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's true, Joss, but as Mark Lijek said at a presentation he and his wife Cora gave here in town they had to persuade the filmmakers, after the film was almost completed, to put in a few things at the end of the film to underscore the Canadians' efforts and courageousness. (The Lijeks are two of the escapees.)

And Paul: I didn't think about that until I read your post (#10). What will be the 9/11 that will pay for Obama's inaction? And will it be bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0