300 the movie... and today

[quote=fishbum;289789]

I wonder if the liberals in Hollywood and in the press understand what this movie really says.
Democracy only stands when good men die for it. Democracy must be defended and good men will volunteer to fight the fight and the people must stand behind them.
[/quote]

Reading this I am reminded of the phrase "history is written by the winners". The notion that Leonidas and the Spartans were fighting for democracy doesn't stand up very well to actual history.

Sparta at this time was a militaristic monarchy. There was no "Greece", but instead a splintered assortment of independent city-states, of which Sparta was probably the LEAST democratic. Sparta's ruling elite oppressed a slave class called the helots, and held an annual festival in which young Spartan men were allowed to kill a few helot slaves for fun.

In terms of a democratic society, the Spartans weren't much different, and sometimes worse, than the Persians they fought.

"In terms of a democratic society, the Spartans weren't much different, and sometimes worse, than the Persians they fought"

I agree...

I just got a new cable system at home. I get everything. I've watched this movie at least 10+TIMES.

It's an awesome movie. The Spartans were bred, born, and trained to fight.

That different than being bred, born, and trained to hate.

[QUOTE=fishbum;299614]YOU LIB's seem to forget that FDR failed to stop Germany early and we ended up losing 250,000 men in a war that we should have helped stop sooner. 20 Million died in a war that should not have occurred. We kept appeasing the dictators and they kept taking more territory and killing more people.[/QUOTE]

Let's all relax, turn the volume down, and go check our facts. It was England's Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, not FDR, who instituted the policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini. As soon as Chamberlain signed the agreement, FDR ordered an increase in America's defenses, knowing that we would most likely end up going to war. And he tried to get our official Neutrality Law rescinded in 1939, but was stonewalled by Congress. So, while you're correct that there is a lesson there about appeasement, please don't blame FDR. And let's remember that it was his "New Deal," a very "liberal" (tax-and-spend) policy, that rescued America from the Great Depression. On the flip side, there were some somewhat "liberal" democrats (Hillary springs to mind), who voted in favor of the Iraq War. So we can't blame WWII on liberals, nor can we lay Iraq squarely at the feet of the conservatives. But I think we can ALL agree that having it over would be a good thing. So while we of course can't just pull out, can we at least try not to draw it out any longer than necessary? The impression I get is that Bush is resigned to turning it over to his successor, so working towards an actual solution isn't a priority.

[QUOTE=fishbum;299614]I used to be a liberal, I used to believe that there was NOTHING worth dying for, that negotiation could solve any issue.. I WAS WRONG.[/QUOTE]

I hope you understand that you made 3 separate statements there. In other words, being a liberal doesn't mean you believe that nothing is worth dying for, or that negotiation can solve any issue. I consider myself a liberal, and I believe that some things are worth dying for; I just don't think that oil is one of them, and I think that our dependence on oil is at the root of our involvement in the Middle East. I also recognize that there's no negotiating with some people, such as those raised to believe that it is their duty to God to destroy America and Israel.

Reading back over this, it looks kind of like an attack on Jim. It is not. What I'd like to get across more than anything is that it doesn't pay to pigeonhole people, and both liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of this. Whether it's because they're on the opposite of the political aisle, or because they disagree with you on a particular issue, making assumptions about people's reasons for their views only detracts from the debate.

[QUOTE=DaveStewart;299628]Actually it was Reagan that failed to deal with Bin Laden when he needed to be dealt with...if he and Congress and had listened to Ollie North we wouldn't have had 911.

Iraq is the right war at the wrong time...if Bush's daddy had taken out Saddam when he had the chance we wouldn't have had to lose more troops and spend billions of dollars to go back and finish the job.

WWII was won by bombing both Germany and Japan into oblivion and in the case of Germany the Russians wholesale staughtered them upon occupation getting their attention real quick. Our victories in WWII were won by the overwhelming majority of this countries citizens united to do whatever it would take to win the war...this is not the case with this war or the wars in Viet Nam or Korea.

The only thing that will win in the Middle East is a wholesale bombing (does not have to be nukes) of the countries supporting terrorism..ie..Iran, Syria, Lebonan. We will not do this because our very existance is not yet felt to be threatened by these folks. We will do it once they set off a nuke here in the U.S. or worse unleash a holocaust caused by germ warfare. Sad but this country is not focused on the survival of freedom...all the flag waving and patriotic talk is great but until our leaders start putting the country ahead of their purses we will be mired up in this for years to come and more good american lives will be the cost.

On the other hand, these idiots over there are just stupid enough to try to oblivate Israel before we decide we have had enough...and that folks will be the end of them...and likely us too when the rest of the world gets involved and starts slinging nukes.[/QUOTE]

Very good informative lessons in "History" made by Dave Stewart.....

I have to see this movie now....:)

I finally watched the movie and it was very good. It does make you wonder when you look at it as Jim and Dave stated.