World Socialist Website Uses Kill Bill To Get At Bush
But Kill Bill originates from a director who sees a high body count as entertainment and violence as valid as any other human activity. Intentionally or not, such a film serves the purposes of this government’s war as the body count grows higher by the day, militarism tries to make youth see violence as just another form of human endeavor and the secretary of defense shrugs off a record number of deaths as a "bad day".Thats clever and all, but what are these 'record number of deaths' that they refer to? While the loss of between 1-2 soldiers per day in Iraq is regrettable, its by no definition a 'record number of deaths'. But, then we can't exactly expect accuracy from a group that uses a film review for political purposes.
Here's a thought. Movies are art, entertainment - lets leave politics out of it.
Previous Comments
[1] On Nov-12-2003, John E wrote:Jerkoff has obviously never seen a Rambo flick.
Any Van Damme films.
Or a John Woo movie.
[2] On Nov-14-2003, wrote:
I thought the World Socialist review was informed and reasonable. You left out the caveat of 'Intended or not...' when the film is linked to US military action in Iraq. Was this intended or not? as it skews the message intended.
As for records, try these:
More Iraqis killed than first Gulf War. Most number of Iraqis killed since their war with Iran. Highest proportion of civilians vs. military personnel killed in any conflict.
Yes, believe it or not, it isn't just Americans dying in Iraq. All deaths are regrettable, but let us not discount the lives of the ordinary people who continue to die in their droves.
As for the flick, I though it was ham-fisted and (of course) derivative. If I wanted to see a martial arts flick, I would have gone to the (superior and more entertaining) original sources. I did like the soundtrack (as I expected) but sound was all-over the place.
Good luck!
[3] On Nov-14-2003, Bret wrote:
Highest proportion of civilians vs. military personnel killed in any conflict. Oh please! Unless you can come with some stats to back it up, that claim is just ridiculous.
[4] On Nov-17-2003, Sjur wrote:
It is a fact that it in the first nine months of the Iraq war it has died more US forces then it did in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war (that is after the US officialy became a part of it)
[5] On Nov-17-2003, Bret wrote:
Not even comparable - we had 17,000 troops in Vietnam after 3 years, we have over 130,000 in Iraq. Iraq is a much bigger operation at this point. And, unless you are going to tell me that the 1st three years of the Vietnam was was the bloodiest in US history, this still does not justify using the phrase record deaths.
[6] On Nov-20-2003, wrote:
Why not use the phrase record deaths? Just because you cannot see beyond the deaths of US troops. As said, there are more than just American armed forces dying there.
Most journalists killed.
Most Italians kiiled in service since WW2.
[7] On Nov-20-2003, Bret wrote:
Now you are just being stupid. Its impossible for something to be a record if you qualify it by saying since WW2. And again you fail to provide any sources for your info.
I'm shutting down this thread.
