• Clips4Sale is having a Black Friday Sale On All Clips -
    Unlock UP TO 20% OFF ON YOUR PURCHASES

  • If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Black Hawk Down.

Longbaugh

TMF Expert
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
361
Points
0
The book is excellent and so is the movie. I've always known about the incident that occurred in Somolia 1993. It was one of the largest Troop engagements since the Vietnam War. The events were never covered well in the press. The book told the story as it happened. The movie does extreamly well in conveying the events as well. I recommend the book and the film. It's good that this goes into the extream mainstream to give credit and acknowlegement to the brave Rangers and Delta Force personal that were involved in this operation.


I give the film four out of four stars.
 
Last edited:
I just got through with the book a couple of days ago, and of course I caught the movie the night it came out. There is absolutely no substitution for the book, but I felt the movie did a decent job at portraying the events.
 
wow !!

Since when has the failiure of the American military been popular in the U.S.? is this a new genre of film?
 
Oz

isn't the lead actor Australian? He used to do stoopid comedy here and now he's getting popular overseas.
 
Last edited:
Saved from the jaws of victory?

Well no doubt your extensive studies will have taught you how many military defeats would have been victories "if" things had been different, "if " only the belgians had aggreed to extend the maginot line across europe, "if" only the ardennes had been properly defended "if " only the british had bothered to fortify singapoor "if" only the aircraft carrier accompanying the Prince of Wales and the Repulse had not run aground on its way to the indian ocean, of course all the above events are a little more complicated than I suggest but defeats they certainly were. So thats my view speaking as a member of the uninformed public.
 
Military vs humanitarian issues...hmmm...easy enough to agree to disagree. The fact that soldiers "were forced to fight" is another issue. When you sign on, it's to serve as your commander in chief requests, whether you like him or not. I choose to not get emotional about that aspect.

No sense in getting intimately involved when Red's comment was simply about military action not the soldiers involved, or their victories against poor odds. I don't think he was insulting so much as the historian in him was surprised at what was honestly a very un"American" movie. We, as a country, generally don't talk about things unless we all 100% successful. *Shrug*

$.02
Jo
 
Hush! All of you!

Red and Longbaugh, you're both wrong.

Red, there's a faction among the American Left who take great satisfaction in American defeats. Jane Fonda is one of them. You could argue that she was young and stupid when she went to North Vietnam in 1967, but her views haven't changed since. Ramsey Clark doesen't have that excuse. That old bastard was in NV with Jane, turned up again in Baghdad during the Gulf War, and has lately come out of the woodwork again protesting the war on terrorism. He's very much an insider in the Democrat Party, nor is he unique. Fortunately, they're keeping a pretty low profile at present.

Longbaugh, Somalia was one of those feel-good operations beloved by the Left. There was no strategic significance, just the desire to demonstrate compassion. First the Marines and then Light Infantry were deployed, because they could be put on the ground quickly. They were denied tanks, armored fighting vehicles, heavy artillery and attack helicopters because it would have taken longer and cost more to get those things there. Besides, we were just feeding hungry children, we wouldn't want to look too intimidating.

Then mission creep took over. The warlords were stealing the food, so the warlords had to go. Never mind that that's how a feudal society is supposed to work. Never mind that the forces available weren't adequate to conquer and occupy the country. After all, reasoned the Clintonites, that's what soldiers are for, and it's not like any of THEIR kids would be put at risk.

The operation was a classic cluster fuck. That's a term of art for a poorly conceived military operation undertaken for political purposes, with no clearly defined objective (or multiple, conflicting objectives), that comes to grief. The results surprise no one except the politicians who dreamed it up.

What the book demonstrates (I haven't seen the movie yet) is the courage and resourcefulness of the American soldier against overwhelming odds. Sometimes that's easier to demonstrate with a defeat than a victory. No one would remember the Alamo if the Texans had won.

There's a faction in the defense establishment that argues that heavy forces are obsolete. They use Afghanistan as an example. Somalia provides a counter-example, if they have the wit to see it.

Incidentally, the warlord involved in the battle died of natural causes a few years later. He was succeeded by his son. The son is a former US Marine who was part of the original landing force.

Strelnikov
 
very confused!

Longy,if you aggree with jo you must agree with me so I am not sure where that leaves us.

Also three of my four examples concern political/administrative failings rather than military ones. So that makes them apples for apples I think?

So if I dissagree with you, you will no longer "acknowledge" me? this is a forum you know, the idea is to hold different views and disscuss them rather than say "its my football and I am going home"
 
Guys

I won't join in this debate, as other than seeing a small documentary on this incident on TV a few years ago, I don't have sufficient knowledge. All I will say is:

1) Humanitarian Missions whether conducted by the military, governments, or aid agencies, are nearly always a Poison Chalice.

2) I am seeing this at the cinema this weekend; boy am I now looking forward to it or what !
 
Geez, it amazes me that Hollywood has brought back the Somalia debates.

Should the US have been there? Depends on whether or not you think the US should police the world. Longbaugh, note that the US was the primary force there. The UN sanctioned it, but few countries lent their thews to the effort, and Strel's right. It was a cluster fuck.

Why we police places outside this country when we've our own house to clean is perplexing to me. We have barely-secured airports and ground transport, and we're STILL flyin' around bulldoggin' for others. It's somethin' that perplexes me to this day.

Some day, the people of this country, as a whole, are going to realize that their money is what's being spent, when it could be for their states, or even their own towns.

I'm all for noble gestures, AFTER we have our home secure and stable. Clearly, last year proved that it's not. It needs to be. Now.

Once this country is again in stable shape, without holes into which anyone may sneak, I disagree with Toneus79. If we're already tight, helpin' those around us is a fine notion. Us first, though.

As for the movie, it's a movie. Name five films where Hollywood didn't bend the truth or remove facts to make a perspective seem storybook-clear.

dvnc
 
hey no probs longy!

I must admit your remark about the "uniformed public" got me going a bit (I hope I have shown I am a little more than that) but being a brit I enjoy a robust debate so if its my ball you can be sure it will stay on the park! I can not add much to what DVNC has said, he seems to get my drift on this subject. So carry on longy I am ready for you!!
 
I was there

not to stray from the discussion,

But, I was there in Mogadishu when the Black Hawk went down. For those of us that have served we did it proudly eventhough we sometimes disagreed with the purpose.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I am hoping to soon.
 
lest I forget

props to all participatin' for avoiding the degeneration we've all seen in such debates and discussions. You folks make moderating a far better task than it could be.

Realized I still have to see this movie. Always dig war flicks, despite knowing full well that they don't accurately portray anything. Ask any photographer that shot pix of a war/police action/whatever-the-hell-it's being called and you know, quickly, that it can't be so great to watch, 'cause near every one of them asked tends to get pale during the discussion. It's always ascribed to remembrance of the horrors of the event. Such horrors aren't shown as such in the movies. When's the last time you recall a movie making you pale in remembrance?

You folks are a damned fine group, though, for not degeneratin' into name-calling arguments.

dvnc
 
DVNC, remember Saving Private Ryan? A teen girl who baby-sat for us at the time said that the opening sequence (the Omaha Beach assault) upset her so much, she walked out of the theater. That movie was as realistic as it gets without iron whistling overhead. My dad (a WW2 vet) refused to see it.

The main problem with the Clinton Administration, from start to finish, was a lack of adult supervision. Not too surprising when the boss is a horny overgrown adolescent. Fortunately, we no longer have that problem.

As for policing the world, the war that we're fighting started long before 9/11. We just weren't paying attention. It's not optional. It's cost thousands of our fellow citizens their lives. From now on, I'd rather see it fought in the enemy's country, at a pace we (not the enemy) set. If that requires policing the world, so be it.

Strelnikov
 
Yeah, that movie WAS pretty brutal. Good flick, though. Didn't buy the way that they were made up, in that one. Never seen pix of a war where the eyes didn't have circles. It's a trivial detail, 'cept that every single picture you see of folks who were on the line has 'em lookin' a bit gaunt and sleepless. Strained. Hanks did it well, though.

The forest scenes squicked me on that flick.

I *love* your description of the Clinton administration. Too true. Amazes me that they did as well as they did, given the number of complete screw-ups there.

Oh, and I'm ALL for blowin' up every single terrorist wanna-be on the planet. No problem wit' that notion, and for those wondering, I would be HAPPY to do it myself. Anyone blowin' up innocent folks needs to be removed from the planet. It's those "peace-keeping" ventures we keep doing that bug me. Somalia, for instance, wasn't something that the US needed to front. It ain't the US, ain't threatenin' the US, and if the UN wants t'go in, there should be a big boat o' soldiers from other countries. Not just us. This country could stand to finish cleanin' house, and THEN volunteer ourselves to other places, AFTER our home and our finances are in order.

Just my perspective, though. I keep waitin' for one o' you old guys t'school me otherwise. Where's Q? 😉 Miss seein' him in these discussions.

dvnc
 
Q has been fully occupied posting to my "John Walker" thread, plus the odd baby-oil post on the other forum (remember that one - the one about TICKLING?)

Strelnikov
 
Yes indeed, she said she waited in the lobby until her friends came out after the movie.

Strelnikov
 
Now Strelnikov, how is a film like that not considered to be one of the greats? 🙄 🙄





I think we are getting a little off topic.......😛
 
What's New

11/28/2024
Happy Thanksgiving!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** LadyInternet ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top