Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
Just as Liberal idiots today failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam.
Just as Republican micromanagers failed to learn from Vietnam.
2007-03-24 18:24:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by CG-23 Sailor 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a historical event that was protrayed in a dramatic, colorful, entertaining way. There are people out there who have nothing better to do that compare everything to things that bother them, like Iraq. These people can't simply enjoy life. They are constantly trying to find things that offend them and to find conflicts where there arent any. Instead of asking this silly question, read about the battle instead, enjoy life Taquito.
Also they were sent to delay the Persians so the Greeks could mount a defense, which they did better than anybody thought they could, so they won in my book. And by the way how were the politics similar? They werent at all. The Persians were attacking Greece (for the second time) because Athens supported Greek seperatists in Lyonia (Turkey).
Spartans were hardier? What the hell does that mean? Did you know a Spartan? Do you have such a disdain for the American people you had to throw that jab in there? Stop and enjoy life.
2007-03-24 22:21:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by John F 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, Thermopylae is like an exaggerated Greek version of the Alamo. It began taking on unreal and mythical dimensions almost immidiately after it happen. Second, the movie ‘300’ is a fictional version of a mythological interpretation of a quasi-historic event. So, you cannot interpret the movie as if it were history.
Having said that, America is more Persian than Spartan in its purpose, action, and (certain) failure. Iraq has a total population of only 25 million, divided (generally) into three groups that hate each other (the Kurds days are numbered, so only two groups will remain), and almost 25% of the entire population lives in one city (Baghdad).
America is the most powerful nation on earth (much like Persia - which had a million-man army at the time of Thermopylae), yet we cannot control the road from downtown Baghdad to the airport, the nation’s only significant city, or any national borders.
Even if we had gone in with 400,000 troops, we would still be in the same mess we are today. Invading Iraq was a stupid idea doomed to failure - and just as Persia’s invasion of Greece ultimately ended in failure, so will the US invasion of Iraq.
2007-03-24 18:31:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
....
You ask if its related to Iraq....
The Iranians are complaining that it makes them look like bad guys in world history..
Geeez....
First of all, the movie is based on the COMIC book, and during the last few years many many many comics find their way to the screens. And a comic like this one, based on an ancient battle between the GREEKS and the PERSIANS, with lots of heroes, swords, blood and warcries would make for a lovely money making film. Let alone looking cool.
Second, its about Persians attacking Greece, and in a war film there must be some actors playing the enemies. And some actors playing the heroes. And its Persians of 2.500 years ago... Thats TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED years ago.... Its not propaganda. Its just appealing, as is the Illiad (poorly transferred into Troy..) or the story of Alexander the Great (also poorly transferred into the movie Alexander).
And i say that again, it has NOTHING to do with Americans or Iraqis...
A movie that is based on a comic that is based on an ancient event....
Its enought "based on" as it is, dont you thing?
2007-03-26 02:19:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by kaustikos1981 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The movie "300" is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel. So while the movie is not trying to make a statement about Iraq, that's not to say things can't be learned from the history of the Spartans.
For a better sense of what happened in the battle at Thermopylae, read a book called "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield.
It's not some dry history book. It reads better than most action novels and it's on the reading lists for junior enlisted, so even the Army considers it relevant to the circumstances in which today's soldier finds him or herself-- which may be Iraq.
2007-03-24 20:45:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The events this movie is based on did happen a long time ago...but...the movie is based on a comic book by Frank Miller which was based on those events. There is a slim chance that while they were making this movie that they saw a parallel but I highly doubt it. Its purpose was to bring an epic graphic novel into the light via CGI film making techniques allowing it too look as much like a 3-D comic book as possible.
2007-03-24 18:08:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by anajunebug 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was thinking the same thing as I watched the movie. People not believing a threat. The counsel arguing about the war and ultimately not supporting the war. Everyone calling King Leonidas crazy and stupid. Many other examples.
edit:
I know that the movie was not about Iraq but there are many lessons we can learn.
2007-03-24 18:28:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, 300 was not based off Iraq...you are a smacktard.
How can you relate a conflict taht happened before our time with three hundred men fighting an entire empire's army, to a large insurgency, fighting a fraction of a country's army? You can't. I'm thinking you an ignorant liberal.
2007-03-24 18:03:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by ansem7 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
The movie 300 is about a battle called "Thermoplye" (pronounced) Therm-mop-o-lee.
There have been wars since a long time before this one and there will be more, and people will always compare the wars they fight to stories that excite them.
2007-03-24 18:04:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dr.Cyclops 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, But the Government of Iran was offended by the movie
2007-03-24 17:59:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by spitfirepilot01 2
·
1⤊
0⤋