WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Wachowskis Secretly Shooting Futuristic Iraq Movie?

Posted: December 8th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Wachowskis Secretly Shooting Futuristic Iraq Movie?Submit Comment
Arriana Huffington, the syndicated columnist and founder of The Huffington Post, updated her Twitter account with a message saying that she's on her way to Chicago to take part in a Wachowski brothers' (The Matrix) futuristic Iraq movie.

A day later, her scene was done and she ended up with some great photos from the set, including shots of Andy and Larry Wachowski. You'll probably have a tough time recognizing Larry, since he's officially a woman now. Take a look below for shots of Huffington on the set, Huffington with Andy and Larry (Lana, the one with red hair), and Huffington with Larry (Lana) and his/her parents.

Back to the movie. How did someone as high-profile as the Wachowskis go into production on a film without anyone noticing?

According to Chud, they didn't. The filming going on at Chicago is just test shots for a possible new project. Everything should be wrapped up in a few days and the Wachowskis will probably use this footage as a pitch or to show a studio how they want the film to look.

Cinematical did a bit more digging and found out that the Wachowskis have previously option David Mitchell's novel "Cloud Atlas." Back in January, we heard that director Tom Tykwer (The International) was adapting the book for the Wachowskis.

The book is comprised of six separate but loosely connected stories that take us from the remote South Pacific in the nineteenth century to the far future after a nuclear apocalypse. It follows six people who are the reincarnations of the same soul through a great span of time.

Source: Twitter, Chud


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 84 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM

I don't care what Mr and Mrs Wachowski are planning. They f*cked up the sequels to one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, and then they dumped Speed Racer on us. I do believe these two C.H.U.D. rejects have exhausted our patience and pocketbooks.
CCBlev writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:17:09 AM

f*ck this sh*t
good_MAY writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:41:18 AM

A f*cking girl? Thats random! The movie idea seems pretty amazing but I would hope if the Wachowskis did movie with this movie they'd get James McTeigue to direct or something. I've gotten sick of their bright colors and leatherbound morons.
VDODSON writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:43:08 AM

What the hell is that guy thinking, he had his wang chopped off? The only redeeming factor in the second, and third Matrix was Monica (big tits) Belluchi. Talk about f*cking sexy.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:48:46 AM

So i guess we found out who Dandy's role model in life is.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:00:47 AM

Monica Belluchi is hot as f*ck. She smoke sin Shoot Em Up, one of the reasons I love that film.

Oh, and Larry had his d*ck chopped off and used for fish food, Dandy never had a d*ck to begin with.
VDODSON writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:11:37 AM

Dandy was born with one nut, and it shriveled into a walnut from not using his. Hence his womanly voice, lying, and bad taste in cinema.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:19:33 AM

Hmmm, interesting theory Vdod. My own theory is that he's just a flaming faggot. But hey, we could both be right.
Ranger writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:41:01 AM

'...futuristic Iraq movie'? I didn't think Iraq had a future.

@mink - nice to read I'm not the only one that has the WTF moment re: The Matrix 2 & 3.

'It follows six people who are the reincarnations of the same soul through a great span of time.

Must be kind of weird to be that weird (and wealthy) that neither Andy or Larry can get a piece of ass, so one of them offers to become the incestuous sister by having 'The Dandy' done to them. Ugh. Well... you're only gay if you're the one GIVING the blow-job, isn't that right ARLegacy?
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:43:09 AM

"It follows six people who are the reincarnations of the same soul through a great span of time."

Sounds like a Wack-owski spin on the The Fountain.

''...futuristic Iraq movie'? I didn't think Iraq had a future."

Lets hope so, or all those soldiers died for nothing.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:47:18 AM

So is ARlegacy getting the dandy treatment now. or is that just personal?
Ranger writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:50:21 AM

AR is the new meat!
Ranger writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:51:10 AM

'...or all those soldiers died for nothing.'

Well said mink. For that ALONE I hope it has a future.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:52:03 AM

2 minutes in

you can imagine newspaper stands in the film with the headline:
WE FINALLY PULL OUT OF IRAQ

then the screen will got black. THE END
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:53:16 AM

wups i meant to add sumat to the headline:
IRAQ RUNS OUT OF OIL!! WE PULL OUT
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 11:58:38 AM

The war wasn't all about oil. Unless you have been to Iraq don't bitch about it. And besides even if you think about it AR and Dandy need to get there petroleum based ass lube somewhere.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:02:57 PM

i have my opinions you have yours dont judge me if you dont know me. ok your right it wasnt all bout oil it was about getting the guns back that were sold to the war criminals.
Osiris3eagle writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:03:30 PM

I thought that whole sex change thing was a rumor
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:05:38 PM

ok that was wrong thousands (sorry if my numbers are wrong) of ppl dies from whats his face who got hanged but were did the guns and weapons they have come from?? and why are we still there?? and wasnt it poloticians who started it so why dont they fight or finish it?? answer me that then?
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:10:02 PM

1. The sex change thing IS a rumor, but a funny and useful one.

2. Iraq was NOT about guns or oil.

I really wish people would look the facts up, do some reading before spreading bullsh*t.

And if I have to, I'll explain what happened, just like I've explained for the last 8 years...
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:13:11 PM

please do mink! im listning
Ranger writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:13:37 PM

You're right mink... it wasn't about those things.

@jeff - '...AR and Dandy need to get there petroleum based ass lube somewhere.' Priceless as always... lol.

jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:13:42 PM

Most of the guns and weapons they have were sold to them by the russians, not the US. We are still there to try and provide security for the region and from a military stand point it is a great tactical location to be at. For some reason our politicians believe that after we beat the f*ck out of someone we have to help rebuild, I don't agree I just follow orders. Iraq needed something to be donem I personally believe the timing was wrong. We needed to finish the war in afghanistan first. Dandy is gay that is all.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:16:09 PM

ok i noticed there was a most in there hmmm...
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:19:18 PM

If you really want to get f*cking technical then,fine Iraqi weapons have come from: Russia, France, Iran and China. The united states did not sell weapons to Iraq. You are thinking of Afghanistan.
rabid writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:22:00 PM

I'll watch it. The Wachowski brother and sister always deliver.

And no Iraq wasn't expressly about guns and oil, it was a big ol' mistaken powerplay-- which Cheney was hoping would lead to more oil control. Too bad it bit him and all of us in the ass.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:23:04 PM

ok then hmmm i read a lot of newspapers (get things wrong coz i get distracted by boobies ;) i think the soldiers need to leave though im from england soo i just get things from our point of view especially since the war with was ILLIGAL!!
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:24:29 PM

but back to the point the FILM i think it will be ok coz they do deliver good films.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:26:05 PM

It was not illegal our congress approved it, therefore not illegal. And don't believe everything the news papers say especially f*cking liberal hippy ones.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:30:14 PM

for ENGLAND it WAS illigal so your wrong :/ sorry to burst your bubble
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:40:17 PM

Oh sh*t.

Back in the eighties, during the cold war, the US was engaged in a lingering struggle with the USSR. During this, Iraq and Iran were fighting a bloody war.

In Iran, there was a great deal of hatred for the US because we had propped up an unpopular but more modern leader, the Shah. Muslim fundamentalists wanted this 'puppet' leader gone and all US influence in Iran destroyed. At the time, Islam was experiencing an enormous bout of nationalism and revivalism. basically, extreme Islamists wanted all foreign influence gone so they could grow their military strength, much like Germany at the end of the 19th century.

Once the Islamists had removed the Shah and taken over the American embassy in Tehran, their control of Iran was complete. Lingering inside the country was an enormous reservoir of hatred and distrust for the US.

Now, in the eighties, the Soviet Union did what they could to stoke Iran, manipulating Iran's anti-Americanism for their own ends. This served the USSR, and it served Iran. They bought and sold weapons, they made military deals.

Now, Iran suddenly found itself in a bloody war with Iraq, the country next door. Saddam ran a mostly secular nation, but the Shi'ite Iranians were far more fanatical. At this point, the US became involved as it became clear that the Soviets were influencing the war, to the detriment of the US. We had already watch them invade Afghanistan, so it was obvious they, the Soviets, were looking to expand their backyard.

So the US entered the fray as a proxy on the side of the Iraqis. Back then, it was an enemy of your enemy is your friend. So we sold them weapons to counter the weapons being sold to the Iranians by the Soviets.

In the end. no one really one the war, which ended in 1988, just one year before the Soviet Union started to come completely unglued. By that time, though, we had sold a large amount of weapons.

Now, in 1991, essentially right before and during the fall of the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait. He considered the little piece of land a lost province and wanted it back. His invasion was condemned by the UN, and a US led war ousted his troops from Kuwait.

Still, he refused to surrender. A ceasefire was reached whereby the UN would not drive to Baghdad and remove him from power, but instead would leave in charge but under a series of conditions. Essentially, he was put on probation. The ceasefire was created to avoid the costly invasion of his nation. It was a mistake.

During this probationary period, some twelve years, Hussein regularly fired on American and British troops. He reneged on his promises of restitution to both Kuwait and Saudia Arabia, he stoked anti-Kurd sentiment, he attempted an assassination of former president George H W Bush and he fed money to suicide bombers, all the while playing hide and seek with equipment and facilities that could make WMDs.

Let me remind you that these conditions were put in place as an alternative to invasion, and at no time did he ever fully comply. He constantly reneged on his side if the ceasefire, but there was no consensus was to what to do. No on wanted a bloody war just to remove Saddam.

In 1998, Bill Clinton formulated a plan to remove him from power using air strikes and a limited ground force, effectively a poor man's invasion. Nothing ever came about this plan.

Then in 2001, Terrorists struck the World Trade center and the Pentagon, and buried a plane full of people in a Pennsylvania field. At this time, Hussein was still boasting his ability to make WMDs, and many politicians believed him. Democrats and Republicans alike, and agencies around the world agreed he had the capability.

At that time, after 12 years of incorrigible defiance of the ceasefire that allowed to remain in power, his claims of WMDs and claims he had ties to terrorist organizations, the decision was finally made to remove him from power, a decision that took well over a year to fulfill, with the US begging for many days at the UN.

In the end, the threat, real or not, and the combination of the possibility Hussein might one day make real his promises, and the fear of something much worse, and the reality that Saddam had simply not held up his end of the UN bargain for almost twelve years, the US finally decide to do what they, the UN, deliberately tried to avoid in 1991. The US invaded.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:45:27 PM

ok mink i believe you
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:46:32 PM

There was nothing 'illegal' about the war in Iraq, and that's a common mistake made by people who hear other people make the same claim. In fact the UN has no binding powers. They cannot enforce the laws because there are no real laws that they make or pass, only agreements between countries or as the UN whole. The fact is, the UN simply refused to give its blessing, so GWB did exactly what his father had done: he assembled a coalition of willing nations.

The other fact is that there are only five nations ont he Security counncil, the inner ring that would've made the Iraq War UN sanctioned, and all but a few, including the US, had very lucrative business ties with Iraq. In fact, France said that even if Hussein showed up with a Nuke strapped to his back, they would never give their blessing for an invasion. France, at that time, was one other nations with very extensive business deals, many of which were actually 'illegal', or verboten by the UN, under the ceasefire agreement of 1991. Russia was another that flouted this ceasefire.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:48:38 PM

And I know you're inclined to listen to Rabid because he thinks like you, but don't. His mind is a political pox and poison of lies and misinformation. I doubt the guy has ever read a book in his life.
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:52:40 PM

ok i wont
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:56:11 PM

yeah, right ;)
heywoodJablome writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 1:06:02 PM

you know you want me to :l
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 1:14:31 PM

Thank you mink for the long version.
ACTIONFIGURE writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 1:23:43 PM

The future of Iraq? (the 51st State)...With any luck, it will be nuked and turned into a the world's biggest glass punchbowl. Halliburton will sell it to some sheik they like to blow and he'll just fill it with oil.
rocketman writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 1:26:51 PM

Sounds like a cool idea to me,but i do loves me some War films.
Also whos the hottie with the pink hair? woof woof.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 1:55:01 PM

I don't know what happened in the last Matrix film it was just a mess really. Reloaded wasn't as bad it was Revolutions that kind of fell apart. Such a shame, the first one is still amazing though.
rabid writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:12:02 PM

For one thing the war was illegal by US standards because the President did not get approval from Congress, who held a majority against the war.
Then he also failed to get approval from the UN, which doesn't make it illegal so much as very ill-advised. That boneheaded move cost us some of our closest allies.
rabid writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:17:14 PM

Hey... and since it was illegal, does that mean we're under no obligation to pay for it? Let's send Cheney and Rumsfield the bill.
rabid writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:24:06 PM

nice insult mingekowski... i'll have you know my friends call my house The Library. There isn't a room without several hundred books stacked... except the bathroom, which has COMICS!
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:31:28 PM

Well, that's great, Rabid. I have several thousand of my own. Not to mention the thousands of ebooks.
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:34:05 PM

So mink, lets get this straight;

The US had no agenda when invading Iraq. All they wanted to do was the right thing, to get saddam out of power because he was evil and renegging on promises.

So why has the US propped up dictatorships in the past, like Indonesia, Guatemala, Iran, etc? OHHH because in Indonesia there was rubber, in Guatemala there was fruit (chiquita, formerly United Fruit Company, didn't like the leftist leaning president so they threw him out for a military dictatorship), and in the middle east there is Oil. Lets not talk about the plans for oil pipelines in Afghanistan before 9/11.

No, Iraq has extensive oil reserves which is why Saddam was hard to touch for so long. Along with 'blessing Iraq with democracy, the invasion was an attempt to wrestle some oil power away from OPEC by gaining control of Iraq's supply and using supply/demand principles to force Opec to cut their output.

Not all went as planned, however. Iraq stayed in control of their own oil reserves, and now it is THEY who have leverage over Opec, who must now cut back on their oil output in order not to have to drastically cut prices.

4,000+ American troops dead.
600,000 Iraqis dead.

And for f*cking what?

Oh yeah, and the Bush Doctrine of offensive defense (aka invade a country presenting itself as a threat)- if thats not illegal, then I say the Japanese had every right to bomb Pearl harbor in response to American threats.

ALSO- I was really stoned the other day and was thinking about things. I was wondering consciousness wasn't necessarily birthed chronologically through time. For instance, after I die, my consciousness could be reborn at another place in time, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Everything I do would be my destiny to build the world I used to live in. Obviously its just a random thought and its not a theory, but something to ponder...
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:34:22 PM

So mink, lets get this straight;

The US had no agenda when invading Iraq. All they wanted to do was the right thing, to get saddam out of power because he was evil and renegging on promises.

So why has the US propped up dictatorships in the past, like Indonesia, Guatemala, Iran, etc? OHHH because in Indonesia there was rubber, in Guatemala there was fruit (chiquita, formerly United Fruit Company, didn't like the leftist leaning president so they threw him out for a military dictatorship), and in the middle east there is Oil. Lets not talk about the plans for oil pipelines in Afghanistan before 9/11.

No, Iraq has extensive oil reserves which is why Saddam was hard to touch for so long. Along with 'blessing Iraq with democracy, the invasion was an attempt to wrestle some oil power away from OPEC by gaining control of Iraq's supply and using supply/demand principles to force Opec to cut their output.

Not all went as planned, however. Iraq stayed in control of their own oil reserves, and now it is THEY who have leverage over Opec, who must now cut back on their oil output in order not to have to drastically cut prices.

4,000+ American troops dead.
600,000 Iraqis dead.

And for f*cking what?

Oh yeah, and the Bush Doctrine of offensive defense (aka invade a country presenting itself as a threat)- if thats not illegal, then I say the Japanese had every right to bomb Pearl harbor in response to American threats.

ALSO- I was really stoned the other day and was thinking about things. I was wondering consciousness wasn't necessarily birthed chronologically through time. For instance, after I die, my consciousness could be reborn at another place in time, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Everything I do would be my destiny to build the world I used to live in. Obviously its just a random thought and its not a theory, but something to ponder...
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:34:38 PM

So mink, lets get this straight;

The US had no agenda when invading Iraq. All they wanted to do was the right thing, to get saddam out of power because he was evil and renegging on promises.

So why has the US propped up dictatorships in the past, like Indonesia, Guatemala, Iran, etc? OHHH because in Indonesia there was rubber, in Guatemala there was fruit (chiquita, formerly United Fruit Company, didn't like the leftist leaning president so they threw him out for a military dictatorship), and in the middle east there is Oil. Lets not talk about the plans for oil pipelines in Afghanistan before 9/11.

No, Iraq has extensive oil reserves which is why Saddam was hard to touch for so long. Along with 'blessing Iraq with democracy, the invasion was an attempt to wrestle some oil power away from OPEC by gaining control of Iraq's supply and using supply/demand principles to force Opec to cut their output.

Not all went as planned, however. Iraq stayed in control of their own oil reserves, and now it is THEY who have leverage over Opec, who must now cut back on their oil output in order not to have to drastically cut prices.

4,000+ American troops dead.
600,000 Iraqis dead.

And for f*cking what?

Oh yeah, and the Bush Doctrine of offensive defense (aka invade a country presenting itself as a threat)- if thats not illegal, then I say the Japanese had every right to bomb Pearl harbor in response to American threats.

ALSO- I was really stoned the other day and was thinking about things. I was wondering consciousness wasn't necessarily birthed chronologically through time. For instance, after I die, my consciousness could be reborn at another place in time, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Everything I do would be my destiny to build the world I used to live in. Obviously its just a random thought and its not a theory, but something to ponder...
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:34:44 PM

So mink, lets get this straight;

The US had no agenda when invading Iraq. All they wanted to do was the right thing, to get saddam out of power because he was evil and renegging on promises.

So why has the US propped up dictatorships in the past, like Indonesia, Guatemala, Iran, etc? OHHH because in Indonesia there was rubber, in Guatemala there was fruit (chiquita, formerly United Fruit Company, didn't like the leftist leaning president so they threw him out for a military dictatorship), and in the middle east there is Oil. Lets not talk about the plans for oil pipelines in Afghanistan before 9/11.

No, Iraq has extensive oil reserves which is why Saddam was hard to touch for so long. Along with 'blessing Iraq with democracy, the invasion was an attempt to wrestle some oil power away from OPEC by gaining control of Iraq's supply and using supply/demand principles to force Opec to cut their output.

Not all went as planned, however. Iraq stayed in control of their own oil reserves, and now it is THEY who have leverage over Opec, who must now cut back on their oil output in order not to have to drastically cut prices.

4,000+ American troops dead.
600,000 Iraqis dead.

And for f*cking what?

Oh yeah, and the Bush Doctrine of offensive defense (aka invade a country presenting itself as a threat)- if thats not illegal, then I say the Japanese had every right to bomb Pearl harbor in response to American threats.

ALSO- I was really stoned the other day and was thinking about things. I was wondering consciousness wasn't necessarily birthed chronologically through time. For instance, after I die, my consciousness could be reborn at another place in time, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Everything I do would be my destiny to build the world I used to live in. Obviously its just a random thought and its not a theory, but something to ponder...
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:34:47 PM

And to save myself the trouble of pointing out how patently wrong you are, Rabid, I'll just copy and paste.

"Other intelligence agencies suggested that Iraq did not possess any offensive UAV capability, saying the few they had were designed for surveillance and intended for reconnaissance. Despite this controversy, the Senate voted to approve the Joint Resolution with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002 providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the US invasion under US law.

The resolution granted the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to command the military to fight anti-United States violence. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement."
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:35:37 PM

Why did you post four times? If you cannot be counted on to post intelligibly, why should I bother reading your comment?
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:40:14 PM

Oh f*cking christ for the last f*cking time, 600,000 Iraqi's did not die! That was a pie in the sky abstract number pulled out of thin air by the left-leaning medical journal The Lancet!

They used highly dubious mathematical methods to extrapolate a round figure, and the 600,000 was the UPPER BOUNDS in that model. You don't even understand the erroneous paper whose claims you choose to employ.

In fact the Lancet paper was not even properly peer-reviewed, and once it was, AFTER it had been published, it was torn to shreds by a number of non-affiliated researchers.

You guys are just like a thousand other nuts that can't even get the facts right.
rabid writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:43:56 PM

that invasion was only licensed for 90 days with limited powers and troop numbers. Congress failed to ratify the war measure. Actually, I think they still haven't 8 years later.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:45:11 PM

"ALSO- I was really stoned the other day and was thinking about things."

That's the dumbest f*cking thing I have ever heard. Getting stoned does NOT increase your ability to think rationally, it does just the opposite, but the lure is that you think you've mentally transcended some sort of boundary. It's an illusion.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:45:51 PM

"that invasion was only licensed for 90 days with limited powers and troop numbers. Congress failed to ratify the war measure. Actually, I think they still haven't 8 years later."

Regardless, it doesn't make it 'illegal'.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:48:58 PM

And of course the only domestic case challenging the 'legality' of the invasion, Doe vs Bush, was thrown out of court.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 2:59:22 PM

Never mind that Congress hasn't ever exactly followed the letter of the 1973 War Powers Act. They sure as hell didn't follow it when Clinton went to war in Serbia. And in fact, over 125 military engagements throughout US history occurred without Congressional approval.
Skywalker121289 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 3:17:24 PM

Ha! He's a girl??! Sucks to be you!!
darkraven28 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 3:37:36 PM

Hot Topic has a new billionaire cashier-ess! Lindaria Wachowski!
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 3:40:18 PM

"Oh yeah, and the Bush Doctrine of offensive defense (aka invade a country presenting itself as a threat)- if thats not illegal, then I say the Japanese had every right to bomb Pearl harbor in response to American threats."

So you're equating an act of provoked war at Pearl Harbor to the act of concluding a war started by a rogue Middle East nation? Wow, I mean, are you argumentative abilities always this pathetic?

Man, it seems every sad little net leftist plays from the same worn Chomsky page. After all these years, I'd hope to meet someone with a new angle. But it's the same old drivel. Conspiracy theories and half-assed historical factoids.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 3:58:23 PM

When congress approved the war they rectified it. The president is allowed to go to war with any country for 90 days with out their approval, in this case they did approve it, with a majority. The actual Operation Iraqi freedom ended with in 90 days by the way (you know when we were fighting the Iraqi armed forces not the insugents). We are currently in a rebuilding and security stage. There are also current contigency operations in Iraq authorized by the support for Operation Enduring Freedom wich is the war on terrorism (the insurgent battle we are fighting now). So technically Iraq is two different operations (Iraqi freedom which has ended and enduring freedom, which allows the POTUS to use military force any where there is a terrorist threat.)
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 4:05:06 PM

Thank you Jeffw. Its good to hear from a patriotic man of the military.

"The actual Operation Iraqi freedom ended with in 90 days by the way (you know when we were fighting the Iraqi armed forces not the insugents)."

That's a very, very good point, one that I missed entirely.
SACdaddy writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 4:25:14 PM

Ahhhhh one of the Wach brothers is a sister now? Is this what happens when you make one good film and countless sh*tty films. When does Brett Ratner go in for his "job"?

Its hard to expect anything from these "guys" after they f*cked up the Matrix (Mink) and Ninja Assassin (which almost hurt just as much). James McTeigue (Ninja Assassin, The Invasion, V for Vendetta) is a complete hack too. If he's attached to this futurist Iraq film I'll avoid it like swine flu.

f*ck the Iraq debate, the Wachowski banana split is still blowing my mind! When did it happen, before or after that gayass Speed Racer film?
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 4:30:55 PM

I'm neither pro-war or anti-war (I'm from Sweden), so I'll stay away from that debate. However have I some other things on my mind.

1. The headline says futuristic Iraqi movie, but it doesn't say anything about Irag in the plotline.

2. If you gonna be a tranny, can't you at least be a bit subtle. I mean, pink f*cking braids. It's ok to be proud, but not that proud. Some things just should stay in the closet (looking at you Dandy)
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 4:36:02 PM

The bannana split happened after dandy and AR got ahold of it.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 4:43:22 PM

"f*ck the Iraq debate, the Wachowski banana split is still blowing my mind! When did it happen, before or after that gayass Speed Racer film?"

This sh*t started several year ago. I'm thinking before 2003. That was around the time Larry, errr, Lana started dressing like a f*cking girl.
triggax writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 5:44:19 PM

Am I the only person on earth that thought Speed Racer was way ahead of its time and f*cking spectacular... How was that movie gay? I came like 3 times watching it... albeit, to matthew fox but came none the less... How is that gay?

On a serious note though, Larry makes a much more appealing woman than he did man... He was one ugly mother f*cker.. and now he looks kind of like a "your cute cause you're my ugly sister" type of woman... Matthew Fox on the other hand.. f*cking dreamtastic... He haunts my sleep.
triggax writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 5:48:54 PM

..... Not gay ^ I dare you to find one homosexual implication in my last post.. I DARE YOU...............
warlord writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:14:21 PM

what was we talking about
SACdaddy writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:15:57 PM

@Trig: Oh sh*t I can's stop laughing!
SACdaddy writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:16:38 PM

Apparently cant type either.
SACdaddy writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:22:11 PM

I'm I the only one that thinks Andy Wachoswki looks like Kane from the WWE in that picture?

http://wa2.images.onesite.com/fans.wwe.com/user/corleonesicilia/kane3.jpg
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:31:41 PM

I mean, the next natural question after all of this is, does Andy f*ck Lana in the ass while squeezing his balls and sticking fingers down his throat?

sh*t, what could be worse than a incestuous homosexual? Dandy?
triggax writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:42:45 PM

An incestuous homosexual chinese midget version of dandy... would be worse than an incestuous homosexual.
Vendetta150 writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:45:16 PM

Can you still qualify them as brothers, since larry still doesn't look drastically different. Just a bit different like dandy after his gender reassignment surgery.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:46:03 PM

trig, man, that can't be true because that would mean there's someone worse than dandy, and I don't f*cking believe it. No one is worse than that little tubesteak eating sh*t bagger.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 6:47:52 PM

"Can you still qualify them as brothers"

You can barely qualify them as human.
trickofthehand writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 7:49:39 PM

I loved Speed Racer. For what it was, which was basically a kid's movie, it was damn good. It was never meant to be taken too seriously and it never took itself seriously.

Matrix sequels were ruined though because they were so contrived and had their head up their own asses with symbolism and trying so hard to be 'deep'.
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 7:54:48 PM

Sorry to bring this back,

Mink; Actually, I thought what I said didn't post at all. When I hit 'post', it said 'server connection error', so I assumed it hadn't worked. But HERE I AM getting all f*cking attacked and sh*t.

I wasn't referencing the study in the lancet. I'm sorry I don't have a link, but I read in NewScientist either this year or last about a new study that said 600,000, finished recently. It was by the same research team whose death toll report on Kosovo the UN used for its war crimes trial against Milosovich.

And dude, even if 100,000 died, that is a terrible thing.

Ive got no problem with the military. Ive got a problem with an invasion of an illegitimate threat and any death toll associated.

Also, I don't smoke pot to gain a f*cking 'greater intellectual freedom' or something like that, I just like to relax. I was saying it was an interesting coincidence that I was thinking about reincarnating through time to build your destiny and then we hear the wachowskis may be making a movie about that. Interesting.

minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2009 at 8:12:33 PM

I gotcha, it's all good dude. No hard feelings here.
Syman404 writes:
on December 9th, 2009 at 12:53:40 AM

I don't really wanna join the crapfest BUT!

"The US had no agenda when invading Iraq. All they wanted to do was the right thing, to get saddam out of power because he was evil and renegging on promises."

He's been gone for a while, why are we still there? I can understand we want a more modern appointed official... but that's what we're losing lives over. I say we got rid of Saddam, it's over. In case of them turning to sh*t again, we'll keep a bomb under their capital to fix it. Simple. Don't need to lose people over something that's no longer our business.
dandythelion writes:
on December 9th, 2009 at 5:43:24 AM

@@@@jeffw1978


you nailed it right on the head.
Ari Gold writes:
on December 9th, 2009 at 7:31:10 AM

So.. Going off Dandy's comment, we can be assured that he does want to turn into a woman with hot pink braids and loves to use petroleum based lube while in ARlegacys company. We can all agree that we saw this and he has admitted to jeff that he was correct in his assumptions..?
U-BMCS09T writes:
on December 9th, 2009 at 3:04:09 PM

Futuristic Iraq = Glowing Hole in the ground?

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved