Oh, I know the media admits to an anti-war movement, but do they ever really give these people some time to explain their position in detail?
Meanwhile, you've got headlines and coverage with Bush claiming discrepencies in Iraq's arms declaration, however, so far, there's been no evidence (as in none whatsoever) to back these claims up.
Secondly (Oh we're in full-on rant right now), it seems they're being a bit hypocritical, anyway. I mean, don't WE have weapons of mass destruction? Doesn't Britain? Or India? Or France?
I mean, if that's our rationale for going to war- because said country has nuclear, chemical, biological weapons- are we going to take on everybody else?
"Oh, well he's a madman."
Oh, yeah? Okay. That's good enough for me. I don't need to think any further on this issue.
I don't think Viggo's point was that the U.S. is clearly evil and Iraq is clearly good. I believe he was just saying, "We have an incredibly arrogant foreign policy, and for all of Iraq's faults (some of which started with us), aggression is not the way to go about this. I think that we are in the wrong in this method."
The parallel to Lord of the Rings was faulty, seeing as how this is the REAL WORLD, with only shades of gray, but I take it with a grain of salt that this was the first thing that popped in his head.
And on principle I agree that political causes and other excuses for self-promotion should not take precedent in a simple film discussion, but:
It just seems (to me) that when there is such a lack of voice for such causes, I don't mind a Lord of the Rings discussion being interrupted.
It's just a fucking movie.
I'm sure any and all creative inputs will be covered in DVD releases and Special Supra DVD releases and other forums ad naseum until the end of time.
"I gotta a whole rack of baseball caps- from kids I beat with chains!"
- The Gorch