http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20910

This film wins best Hollywood awards for portraying the Iraq War in a politically correct way which does not even question to issues behind the unjust Iraq War. Geo-political/economic and religious issues are never once addressed. The widespread lies about Iraq 

Hurt Locker is nothing more than a Hollywood action movie that does not really show a non-partisan approach to the Terminator films are more or less as real as the Hurt Locker. Fiction, fairy tales and lies sell a lot more than the cold hard bitter reality. 

I would like to hear from opponents and Iraqis/Muslims who oppose the unjust Iraq war. There is more than one side to a story. The violent films from Hollywood desensitizes people and makes them more violent/aggressive: soldier military training. 

Anyone dare to question 9/11 official story is labelled a kook or a conspiracy theorist by both sides of mainstream politics. Iraq War was built upon lies from Tony Blair and Jack Straw who were the key men who built up a fairy tale to justify invasion upon Iraq. 

To the people who have seen Hurt Locker, do you agree with the way it was shown as being a politically correct non-partisan view of the Iraq War or a war propaganda Hollywood fairy tale film?

Who cares? If all movies were politically correct what diversity would there be? It was a good movie and I don't believe the director was like "Oh, OK guys let's make this politically correct now alright you guys?" It's a good movie, whether it's politically correct or not.

It was an entertaining movie, not what I woulda picked for best movie of the year though. Movies often don't show all sides evenly. As an historically accurate movie, I dunno if it's accurate, I've never been to Iraq, and the media sometimes feed garbage, in every perspective.
...

There's conspiracy theories all ways aka "ZOMG the government is evil" and "ZOMG Muslims are Evil", "ZOMG The US never really landed on the moon."

i see 1 of two things happening with this thread

1. most will ignore investigation into the accusation, and continue enjoying military government propaganda such as Call Of Duty.

2.  if there are to be a lot of responses, many will offer defense of this movie and most official propaganda masquerading as entertainment, continuing down their chosen path of woeful and willing ignorance.

(majority arguing for the movie will not have read the article)

I came across this link not too long ago that gives more detail on the Military Entertainment Complex

Militainment: U.S. Military Propaganda in the News Media, Hollywood, and Video Games 

I've read reports, of the US commiting attrocities in Vietnam, and other places, the Japanese commiting attrocities in Nan King. atrocities everywhere.

I still don't see how the movie can't be entertaining. It's a movie, it's fiction, the hero obviously didn't act realistic, I don't see what the problem with being entertained is. Call of Duty is a video game. If people go to Call of Duty for viewpoints on society today, then uhh... doesn't seem like the best source. So it serves its purpose as entertainment.

I mean Call of Duty isn't my cup of tea, Final Fantasy is, Neither is the Hurt Locker, Blade Runner and Crouching Tiger is. I just don't see the big deal if some people get their jollies from Hurt Locker type movies.
 

The Hurt Locker quite deliberately doesn't say anything about Iraq and nor is it particularly about Iraq.  Iraq just happens to be the setting as a recent conflict.

The Hurt Locker is exclusively about men in combat, and in particular how some become almost addicted to being in a combat situation - something now recognised as true and in fact the subject of two recent books - while others just want to get through it alive.

I'd say it's a practicaly perfect film and works all the better for not even trying to explain Iraq, which is beyond the ability of a 2 hour film.  TBH that kind of depth is for books still.  What the Hurt Locker can cover very well is elements of the men on the ground, without any political overtones.

I'm afraid you're falling prey to the idea a film in a setting has to try and cover everything or it's not being fair.  This simply isn't true and simply isn't feasible.

Unless you watched a different Hurt Locker to me it doesn't tell the US side or any side.  It's about a very small number of men and how they are reacting to a situation which is not even particular to Iraq.  With practically no changes you could take the entire film and set it in Vietnam, or World War 2 in Europe, or World War 1.

The Hurt Locker is looking at some universal aspects of combat, not Iraq.

Whether or not you consider simulating real life murders that have occurred entertainment or not is your business,

but what you're being asked to consider from the article and the link I posted are whether or not they're propaganda or not.

Recently, Medal of Honor is a game that's publicly been said to be made in tandem with the military (at e3 of this year), if you watch/read Pentagon and Hollywood, you'll see that the military will only offer cooperation for an entertainment project if it serves as a vehicle for recruitment and public relations, i.e. propaganda.

Recently, Medal of Honor is a game that's publicly been said to be made in tandem with the military (at e3 of this year), if you watch/read Pentagon and Hollywood, you'll see that the military will only offer cooperation for an entertainment project if it serves as a vehicle for recruitment and public relations, i.e. propaganda.

Then, if that was your whole point that I didn't catch the first time, I agree.

Like some have said already, it was meant to show what combat troops go through during war. This isn't about war propaganda or being fair. 

Quite frankly I think your poll choices kind of blows.  How the hell are most war films fair and balanced?  They usually show the US side and hardly go into other sides of conflicts.  Sure there are a few WW2 movies that show German side but not too many.  I think the Red Baron film did a pretty decent job showing Manfred Von Richthofen even though some of it was fake.  Anyways, I think it was a very poor decision to put fair and balanced like most war films since nearly all can't be considered that.  PS - I fucking hate the term fair and balanced. 

Dog fights in World War I between Germans and Britain/America coalition. Two opposing fighter pilots could look each other in the eye in a dramatic fight to the death. The best ace fighter pilot won the battle. Modern conflict involves just pressing a button or one side having much better weaponry than their opponent.