So the fact that the war in Iraq is never actually described or detailed in the movie pretty much negates what you just said Wiintendo.

Also, is destroying terrorist groups that plant bombs trying to kill thousands of innocent people not a noble cause?

You people seem to think the US is fighting Iraqi's, but that is not the case.  You defended the Romanian troops for fighting against their communist regime... well guess what the US and other nations did in Iraq.  They overthrew the communist regime because the Iraqi people had no means to do so themselves.  The only reason our troops are still there is to eliminate terrorists whose only goal is to kill thousands of innocent Iraqi and other peoples.  We are there to train and help strengthen the Iraqi people so they can defend against such terror themselves and never be caught under a communist regime again.

America haters sure are ignorant.

If you want to see a non-propaganda movie of the Iraq war then go see Generation Kill (well actually it's a 7 episode tv-series). A true story about reckon marines during the invasion, gives really interesting insight (also, go read the book which it's based on). It's from the same guy who made The Wire. It's really good.

Wiintendo said: The Hurt Locker: Six Oscars for a propaganda war movie http://madamearcati.blogspot.com/2010/03/hurt-locker-six-oscars-for-propaganda.html?zx=411762e5e54ce8e0   In fact the movie is a deft piece of war propaganda. Its unsung assumption is that its US soldiers are in Iraq for some good purpose - no need to spell it out - and that lives are put at risk for some good reason, you fill in the blanks.  Hollywood And Media Scramble to Prepare Pro-War (But Box Office Loser)  'Hurt Locker' Win at Academy Awards  in at Academy Awards http://ofgoatsandmen.blogspot.com/2010/02/hollywood-and-media-scramble-to-prepare.html One Reviewer attempts to say that a 'Hurt Locker' victory would be a "defiant celebration of artistry over commerce."  It might also represent the very interests of commerce at work behind the scenes to make sure a pro-war propaganda film gets pushed into the limelight.  The Hurt Locker as Propaganda   For a supposedly anti-war film, Kathryn Bigelow's Hurt Locker serves as a remarkably effective military recruiting tool.   http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_hurt_locker_as_propaganda In general, though, you feel empathy for the soldiers when they shoot. And in this way, the full impact of the Iraq war -- at least as it was fought in 2004 -- becomes clear: American soldiers shot at Iraqi civilians even when, for example, they just happened to be holding a cell phone and standing near an IED, as Colin H. Kahl, a military analyst and Obama administration official, wrote in International Security. Even more chillingly, as Kahl explained, a U.S. commander once ordered that all middle-aged Iraqi men in a certain area could be shot. The Hurt Locker, Cultural Politics and Uncritical Critics Screening the Politics Out of the Iraq War http://www.counterpunch.org/sterritt07242009.html What groups and individuals are planting those explosives all over Baghdad and beyond? Don’t they put life and limb at risk as audaciously as the bomb-squad soldiers do? A Soft Focus on War http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5864/a_soft_focus_on_war/ For all its mystifications,Avatar clearly sides with those who oppose the global Military-Industrial Complex, portraying the superpower army as a force of brutal destruction serving big corporate interests. The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, presents the U.S. Army in a way that is much more finely attuned to its own public image in our time of humanitarian interventions and militaristic pacifism. In its very invisibility, ideology is here, more than ever: We are there, with our boys, identifying with their fears and anguishes instead of questioning what they are doing at war in the first place.

So a bunch of bloggers believe it to be propaganda. Therefore, it must be the case.

Three cheers for thinking for yourself and trying to discern what a film meant to you, internet blogger opinion be damned. People are going to walk away from a film like The Hurt Locker with differing opinions but unless you can back up your reasoning with your own beliefs, your posts come off as shrill and vapid.

I've heard good things about Generation Kill. I'll check it out.

But rapes, mass killing, torture, mass incarceration have been committed by US soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you will agree? (google to find numerous news about these events)

So according to you, if a movie decides to depict the vicious crimes of an invading and occupying force that occured in Iraq and Afghanistan, which btw is depicting the truth, makes that movie a propaganda?

Wrong. Saddam Hussein's regime was not a communist one. Educate yourself. The US did not invade Iraq to dispose of his goverment, that reason would never be acceptable and would violate international law. The US invaded by giving the pretext of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' being hidden in Iraq by the Iraqi goverment. Not a single such WMD has ever been found proving the excuse of the US to be a bald faced lie. Moreover the Security Council never adopted a resolution giving the US authority to invade, it attacked anyway which instantly makes the action an act of war crime. The devastation of Iraqi society after the invasion is a direct cause of it and has thus resulted from a lying reason.

My modern war movie of choice is Jarhead.  I liked it a lot more than Hurt Locker.

Are you kidding me?  Iraq was run by a communist party up until the invasion by the US... educate yourself.

The devestation of Iraqi society was done so by Hussein and the communist party long before the US came.  The US exists there now to fight terrorist groups and help the Iraqi people build a strong democratic government that can protect itself.

Arab Nationalism is very different from Communism. There was no Communist party in Iraq. And the US has no right to invading any country and to overthrow their Government.

And I'm sure there are soldiers in Iraq just like the guys from The Hurt Locker. Bigelow has said multiple times she wanted to tell a story from the soldiers' perspective without getting into the details of the overall "right or wrong" of the war.

Yes, bad things have happened in the war. If someone wanted to make a movie about those atrocities, I'd probably watch it. If it was done as nicely as The Hurt Locker, I'd probably even enjoy it (as much as one could "enjoy" something like that anyway), just as I enjoyed Letters from Iwo Jima, which displayed much of the Japanese military in a sympathetic light when the Japanese were also mass-murdering Chinese and SE Asian civilians left and right, the film just didn't focus on it. Should I spew hatred for the film for ignoring those atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire? No, because that wasn't the point of the film. The same applies to Nazis and countless other armies that did terrible things to other people. If the director doesn't want to muddle their story with the grand scope of a military campaign in favor of telling a small, regionalized story, more power to them if they do it and do it well, as Bigelow did with this film.