The movie, 'Stop-Loss' is one-sided...

To paraphrase the Vice President, "So?"

Finance and make your own movie, Ben, espousing, in your view, how glorious and necessary the war in Iraq is.

You can somehow work in a 9-11 reference, I am sure.

You can talk about how Saddam killed Kurdish Iraqis, even as our military provides grid co-ordinates so that Turkey can finish what Saddam started.

You can pontificate about how succesful the 'surge' has been in combatting Iraq's civil war, even as Iraq blows up with political in-fighting.

Then, lastly, Ben, you can tell us how making your movie provoked you to quit college, and enlist.

Please visit my anti-war website, www.shockedandawful.com

A movie that shows that some soldiers have PTSD does not imply that all soldiers have PTSD any more than a movie about football players implies that all people play football. It's about characters that have very real and very common problems as a result of war trauma. Why don't you distinguish yourself among dogmatic conservatives and try supporting the troops instead of the war.

Sweetheart, clearly you are an extremely conservative kid. You're probably even in the Corps. I respect that, but what is not at all respectable is a negative critique on an art based on your one-sidedness. Yes, the film is one-sided, but so is your opinion of the matter. Every film, painting, song, or what have you has a particular message- often a political one. If you're going to remain in journalism, or any kind of liberal arts career, I suggest you try to understand both sides of the political spectrum. You have to understand where liberals are coming from when it comes to the war in Iraq- you don't have to agree with it, you could even think it's stupid, but you want to be taken seriously in a career that's dominated by liberals, you can't be one-sided. Interesting, isn't that what you said was wrong with the film?....

I don't feel sorry for the guy in the movie....read the contract before you sign it.

I believe the main character in the movie mentions the Stop-Loss rule and how he thought it didn't apply since they/we weren't/aren't in an actual, full-out war which means he had read the contract. Pay more attention to what going on in the movie instead of just reading the synopsis.
I don't know from experience but I'm thinking they don't specificly point that clause out when you sign up...
The movie was more Pro-Soldier than Anti-war and just attempted to present the information about Stop-Loss the some of the emotions a soldier can go through. I agree with Dave; it wasn't a movie to generalize about all soldiers but this group.
What a terribly written review.

Del Wasso,

Though I somewhat disagree with your views, doesn't the statement made by anyonymous present a valid point? I may be wrong in presuming so.

"They enlistee may have wanted to simply follow a family tradition, fulfilling a sense of duty or patriotic obligation, regardless of where he or she were to be sent, and serve..."

LOOKS VOLUNTARY.

"The recruit may have been young, unemployed, and with a baby on the way...
and with no way to be able to successfully start their new family without gov't assistance."

STILL VOLUNTARY.

"But don't make gaseous claims that our troops,'volunteered,' Ryan."

You have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

Del Wasso,

I meant no hostility, and I sure hope you didn't either in your response. I assume you're very passionate about the topic, which is understandable.

However, I never made any gaseous claim about "volunteering." I was simply trying to promote the discussion.

From what I can tell you will not get sent to Iraq unless you volunteered to fight for your country. Just because you don't want to Del doesn't mean that you should sell short the sacrifices that our great American heroes are making.

Also, your website is ridiculous and a completely anti-sematic. Whatever your personal agenda is with the Jewish faith you should not belittle our troops.

Del Wasso:

True or false?
You chose to be in the military?
(true)

You chose to go to war if need be, and signed a contract regarding such an agreement?
(true)

If someone cannot afford to have a baby and does not want to go to war, they should not agree to join the military?
(true)

It sucks for those that knew they were going to Iraq for a bad reason and were in the military before the operation started, but I don't feel bad for those who knew there was a war and signed up to go. They can quit their whining.

Also, the movie looks stupid.

About the author's opinion that the movie was one sided - it's allowed to be. It's called creative liberty. The directors and writers have every right to make a movie how they see fit, no matter what the views are of certain members of the audience, just as you, the viewer, have the right to either buy a ticket to the film or stay at home and sit it out.

about the movie portraying that all soldiers have flashbacks and PTSD - if you come to that assumption from a fictional movie, you need to be a bit more of a think-for-yourselfer...obviously ALL of a certain group will not fit into a certain category - ever. Sure many come back with it, but we'll never be sure of a number because of people that won't get help because of pride (it's happened in our unit), misdiagnosis by a DR, or other circumstances.

About the "read the contract" comments - they do read the contract, and it is explained (how in-depth, I'm not sure), but it's still a surprise when it actually happens to you. Just like all the men and women who put in their time and got out during the years between Desert Storm and 9/11, the people who joined pre-9/11 (my husband included) joined knowing that a time of war COULD occur, but didn't anticipate it happening during their military career. It was a surprise to them as much as it was to any civilian. You don't EXPECT a war, and you don't EXPECT a stop-loss...even though you know it could happen.

About the whole "don't do what they want... they do what they are told" - yeah that's true, but that's ALSO in the contract, which they read. It's just a part of the job which they VOLUNTARILY signed up for.

Which brings me to the last point. I don't care what Mr. Del Wasso says, joining is completely voluntary. Sure the job market and economy might be so harsh on young families that they see the military as their best option, but there's almost never ONE solution to any problem. My husband decided to join #1 because of a family history in the military, and #2 because it was the best way to provide us (wife and baby on the way) with insurance, a house, and a steady paycheck. Was it his only option? No. We could have worked hourly-paying jobs, signed up for Medicaid, and perhaps qualified for the welfare system, but he wanted more than that- he wanted to see the world. Since 2000, he's seen Hawaii (1st duty station), Afghanistan (1st deployment) which he says is the most beautiful place he's ever seen, Iraq (2nd and upcoming 3rd deployment) and Ft Hood (current duty station). He's CHOSEN to re-enlist twice (both times during a deployment) and we've decided as a family that we're in this for the long haul. Sure it's easy to complain, but this is the life we chose for ourselves. Do I want him to deploy again? No, but when he came home with an estimated date to leave again, I just kind of shrugged and said "that's what we signed up for - this is our life, and I'm in this with you."

It's easy to be an outsider with an opinion, but I'm not going to tell you all to shut-up and/or join for yourselves - that's both ridiculous and idiotic - but I hope that the intelligent majority of you who see the movie or read these comments will know better than to lump anyone into a certain category or think that soldiers don't know what they're getting into to a certain extent.

Heart goes out to all who are currently serving over there and the nobility of their intentions whatever they may be.

That aside, i was just talking to a friend recently about sacrifices and how soldiers serving over there have been making a heck of a lot of sacrifices for us back over here and there was just something bugging me in the back of my mind. Where is our sacrifice in all this.

I swear that sometimes i get the feeling that we are sending people over there with little or no support for them if and when they get back home. Ask your living grandparents during WWII about how there was a movement to collect material among women to be used to make parachutes, or where bacon grease was collected for refinement to make explosive material for the troops arsenal. In a sense, the whole nation was actively engaged in the success of our troops overseas.

What have we today? The voluntary army seems to be running solely on little or no help for voluntary support from the public. I guess one could apply the conservative mantra of not expecting the government to be of any help since the government seems to not be in the least interested to help returning troops at all. The VA system is a complete mess, 1/3 of all homeless are vets, wounded troops are returning and being told that their wounds were not inflicted in battle therefore not deserving the promised aid and medical attention.

To be honest, from a semi-cynical and completely bureaucratic point of view, all these alleged dysfunctions seem to be very clinical and efficient measures. There is little planning and funding to help returning troops maybe (and this is a very big maybe) that a good fraction of the troops were never expected to return in the first place. I mean, from a clinically sterile military point of view, a soldier is suppose to follow orders and fight battles, maybe occasionally thrown to the wolves by bad officers but that's part and parcel of military life. Having served in an army somewhere else before and after talking with many in service over here, i can say that the sentiment is universal.

Even the term 'Stop Loss' reveals the clinical and bureaucratic nature of the program. Not a retention scheme but a way to stop the loss of potential fighting troops (for lack of a less morbid term, cannon fodder) by unexpected extension of service.

Look, at the end of the day, there is no way to prevent stop loss legally or to get any meaningful change in the government to do their job and help returning troops or even the troops over in combat overseas. We can only do what we can. Like back in the ole' days where the nation as a whole had vested interest in not only the success of the war but the well being of each and every soldier fighting overseas. Volunteer force or no volunteer force, they need support from the only people that can support them.

Please get in contact with your local church or society to make meaningful sacrifices or money/item donations for our troops over there. While i'm not saying you have to give an arm or a leg or anywhere close to that, what i'm saying is that wearing a bumper sticker yellow ribbon or going to pro/anti war protests is not enough anymore.

They need more than their letting on and we need to be smart and caring enough too see through the macho front and give them what they actually need. Get more people aware that we need to be looking after them while their there and when they come back. Lets show them that we're not throwing them overseas to die for us, but rather that we want them to do the best for their nation and their nation expects them home for dinner with friends and family once they're job is done.

I am no longer an Obama supporter. After discovering the truth about the church he went to for 20 years,I can not support this man.Obama has made so many bad choices,and been close to so many bad people that I can't even come close to supporting him any longer.

"Beyond that, it's not even a very strong anti-war discourse."

If you agree that's its not even a very strong anti-war discourse, then WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Perhaps because the movie was meant to portray a story? You're a terrible writer. If you can't keep political views out of entertainment review you should consider writing for political columns only. You're review isn't even one-sided either, it's lacking any useful content that may lead to thought. You're a waste of time kid.