Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
"stop-loss" anyone see this movie?
- Thread starter rnch
- Start date
stosstruppe
Well-known member
Judging by the comments left by the majority of people on the recent "Soldier looking for Canadian asylum / refuses to go back to Iraq" thread I don't think too many people will be sympathetic towards the main character / theme.
Certainly a thought provoking film; what is of interest is how poorly it performed at the box office, perhaps a little too much reality for people to deal with in their leisure time?
Certainly a thought provoking film; what is of interest is how poorly it performed at the box office, perhaps a little too much reality for people to deal with in their leisure time?
stosstruppe
Well-known member
Stop-loss was created by the United States Congress after the Vietnam War.[citation needed] Its use is founded on Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) which states in part: "... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" and Paragraph 9(c) of DD Form 4/1 (The Armed Forces Enlistment Contract) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
So technically your service could be prolonged for decades? Are US forces' personnel who were supposed to find themselves discharged in say '03 after 8 years service or w/e still being retained to this year under the above directive?
So technically your service could be prolonged for decades? Are US forces' personnel who were supposed to find themselves discharged in say '03 after 8 years service or w/e still being retained to this year under the above directive?
Razorguns
Well-known member
Some anti-war liberal crap. Once popular opinion turns against the war, boom movies and books come flying out. This movie would never have been made in 2003 or 2004.
Yeah it takes a lot of balls to make an anti-war movie when society is with you. Wow. At least Micheal Moore had balls.
r
Yeah it takes a lot of balls to make an anti-war movie when society is with you. Wow. At least Micheal Moore had balls.
r
milo hobgoblin
New member
Razorguns said:
Whoa.. lets not get all crazy here... no way in hell that guy has balls
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
I'm glad to see there's no profit in disrespecting the honorable American Soldier.
Excerpt from Wiki:
The film was a box office bomb. In its opening weekend, it grossed a mere $4.5 million in 1,291 theaters in the United States and Canada, ranking #8 at the box office.[3][4] As of June 17, 2008, it has grossed a total of $10.9 million in the United States and Canada and over $16,000 in other territories.[5] The film had an estimated budget of $25 million.[6]
Excerpt from Wiki:
The film was a box office bomb. In its opening weekend, it grossed a mere $4.5 million in 1,291 theaters in the United States and Canada, ranking #8 at the box office.[3][4] As of June 17, 2008, it has grossed a total of $10.9 million in the United States and Canada and over $16,000 in other territories.[5] The film had an estimated budget of $25 million.[6]
stosstruppe
Well-known member
75th said:
Not taking sides (yet) or justifying desertion, just looking for clarification on the above.
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
Way worse!!!75th said:
I never liked basketball anyway, but if I did - I'd be boycotting the Dallas Mavericks. Their owner is a piece of shit for his financing of that movie.
Same goes for Brian De Palma, for writing and directing it.
I'll never understand how someone who has obtained success in America can go so far out of their way to bring embarrassment to it.
They have the right to make this genre of movie, but that doesn't make it right!
Similar threads
