The Lone Survivor Movie

originally posted by: opethPA

So in other words, you play COD or BF4 so you think that you have enough knowledge to offer your thoughts on this.

Got it, makes sense.

And who were you again?

a reply to: semperfortis

It was a movie... Pure and simple

Yet is presented as true story, Lutrell was an advisor and did a lot of promotion.

Are you saying that I was not right in my criticism of the events as portrayed in the movie?

And who were you again?

Just a random person like you.

Yet the USA has not won a war since the surrender of Japan in ww2

a reply to: PandorasBoxxx

I dont think you quite understand why some members think you are getting this wrong.

You see the movie was not about the Super-Solider, it was not like "Big-Arnie" in "Commando"

It was about brotherhood, it was about what those guys went through, together, as brothers.

It was about the feats of bravery such as Mike Murphy making that call to his HQ. It was about how the local afghans took in Marcus, it was not about a few goat headers stumbling across a SEAL Team.

You really disrespect the guys who died on that operation when you say that

Making a mistake is basically the same as not doing a good job.

Remember these were real guys who were really killed in a intense firefight, when you say they were not doing a good job its like a slap in the face to their memory.

I would not even call it a mistake, it was more just bad luck.

a reply to: all2human

The US hasn't had a clean victory since 1945 because the US hasn't fought Total War since 1945. I mentioned this on another thread and someone mistook that to just mean carpet bombing. That's part of it. Full bombardment to break public will...but it's MUCH MUCH more. It's also about NO negotiating with the enemy for terms. NO back room and black market dealing with the same people our fellow countrymen are being killed by, miles away at times. It means...fighting with EVERYTHING and with EVERYONE available and not stopping..until the enemy isn't JUST defeated but totally and utterly destroyed for the ability to function on any level.

THAT is how wars are won. THAT is what hasn't been done once, since World War II..and probably just as well, for the loss of life required to fight to win...(tho don't go if we can't win) and that is why I say it's silly to say we haven't won a war since Japan. It's not that we CANNOT win...it's that we CHOOSE to avoid the slaughter required. We have MORE than enough ability, without ever touching a nuclear device.

Lutrell in his book about the observation point(where they were compromised)

“And when we got there, I had to agree it was perfect, offering a brilliant angle on the village for the lens, the spotting scope and the bullet. It had sensational all-around vision. If [Shah] and his gang of villains were there, we’d get him.” - See more at: www.onviolence.com...

a reply to: PandorasBoxxx

And once anyone started up towards them, if they moved they would be seen. So they hunkered in place and hoped they would go around them or not see them.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Remember these were real guys who were really killed in a intense firefight, when you say they were not doing a good job its like a slap in the face to their memory.

If they had done a good job there wouldn't have been an intense firefight which they got killed in.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Unilateral surrender under international law would suffice..
Annihilation not so much,although i may be mistaken i don't think the world has seen that since medieval times.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And once anyone started up towards them, if they moved they would be seen. So they hunkered in place and hoped they would go around them or not see them.

So maybe they made the mistake of choosing a spot that was not very perfect at all. Choosing a spot you can't retreat from seems kinda stupid.

I am sure the real warriors here have another excuse.

a reply to: PandorasBoxxx

Sometimes you have to make the best of a bad choice. Again, not everything is going to be perfect. The perfect spot many times may be too far away to carry out your mission. So you pick the best of a number of bad choices.

a reply to: PandorasBoxxx

If they had done a good job there wouldn't have been an intense firefight which they got killed in.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!

First of all, you are in no position to judge what you see as "doing a good job", unless you have personally been in that situation.

But as I have said, again you are missing the point.

it is not a film about a compromised SEAL Team in the same way that Tears of the Sun was. Rather this movie was a attempt the bring to the viewer a true story about the intense brotherhood between those men as they faced death and to bring their very real story to a audience who might have otherwise not have been aware of it.

I read the book when it first came out, but based on your posts so far i would have to assume that this was the first you had heard of Operation Red Wings.

So again go and read the book then judge these men.

a reply to: all2human

I agree....unilateral surrender works. That last happened on the deck of a Battleship named for the state I proudly reside in. If someone else would like to do what the Japanese Emperor did, it definitely would end a war. On the spot. Look at it took to get there though... and in terms of the thread here? Afghanistan didn't even HAVE anyone to surrender.

Very much true to form, when threatened for real, the Taliban didn't stand and fight or stand tall to meet the threat like German command and Japanese command did. Even when those two knew the end was there, and nothing, of any kind, would change it...they still stood tall. I respect the hell out of that, even if they were Nazis and Cultural bigots for the time period.

Mullah Omar just said 'Every man for himself! RUN!!" and run he did...all the way to Waziristan, as rumor has it. Hence....people like Marcus were left to fight battles they never should have been in country to catch the assignment for and watch friends die in a fight which should have ended long before that. Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: PandorasBoxxx
a reply to: Zaphod58

And once anyone started up towards them, if they moved they would be seen. So they hunkered in place and hoped they would go around them or not see them.

So maybe they made the mistake of choosing a spot that was not very perfect at all. Choosing a spot you can't retreat from seems kinda stupid.

I am sure the real warriors here have another excuse.

Because youre perfectly capable of assessing a situation and considering every single variable to the point of 0 probability of failure or being compromised......

This is starting to feel more like either a Vendetta thread on Lutrell .....

Or a troll thread from a new member

I say this because no ammount of common sense seems to break through the OP and every logical question posed to him is met with either snide remarks, obfuscation or ignoring the question completely.....

Time to stop feeding , gl guys

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Please, it's just a propaganda movie to get more people to enlist. And this Lutrell guy is trying just a little bit too hard to share his story.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes, bla bla, but you know I am right. They messed up.

a reply to: PandorasBoxxx

Of course they did, because you said so. After analyzing the situation from your living room after watching a movie, using all your military knowledge, you planned out the perfect mission, and know exactly what they should have done.

originally posted by: PandorasBoxxx
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Please, it's just a propaganda movie to get more people to enlist. And this Lutrell guy is trying just a little bit too hard to share his story.

What so you think the story of Mike Murphy and the other 19 US Service men who died during that operation should not have their story told.

Again you just don't get it.

you dont seem to have the depth of thought to understand that this was more than just a movie about killing "rag-heads".

Calling it "propaganda" just seems so cold, BF4, COD, Act of Valor, they would be "propaganda".

Lone Survivor not so much, it hardly paints a very nice picture of life as part of the US Navy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

you dont seem to have the depth of thought to understand that this was more than just a movie about killing "rag-heads".

Or you are so deluded that you think it actually was.