Hanks and Spielberg present The Pacific - An Anti War Propaganda Film

Hanks' and Speilberg's "The Pacific", a 10 part miniseries ran back in March, on HBO.

Touted by Hanks' as a movie that will show the other side of WWII, saying, "'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese people", did not exactly produce shock and awe.

In the first 20 minutes, we hear WWII soldiers say the dreaded "Jap" word several times. If that is supposed to be the Oh My God moment, it was not. That word appeared in the headlines of newspapers all across America, especially after December 7, 1941. One scene came toward the end of the movie that I assume is supposed to show American soldiers for the sadistic murdering individuals Hanks and the rest of the anti-war Hollywood ilk, believe about our US troops, features the men taunting a Japanese soldier, shooting but not injuring him, and laughing.

How hard were we laughing when the Japanese tormented, tortured, raped, and killed our soldiers? Was it humorous when the Japanese used Philippines soldiers and Pilipino women, as human shields, all under the nose of the Geneva Convention?

Nothing more than a rehashed version of Oliver Stones' views of veterans, such as in the movie, Platoon, I am sure anti-war types will shout, "See I told you they're no better than baby killers!

Before Hanks starred in the one film that boosted his film career, Philadelphia, while playing a transvestite on a sitcom, no one ever heard Hanks' anti-war political rants. Before Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, fans did not know that Spielberg thought the US's involvement in WWII was unnecessary. Go figure that one out.

HBO runs several documentaries, including Rosie's Gay Cruise, and probably thought running The Pacific was a good opportunity for them to appeal to the liberal lunatic fringe. They are probably correct, but what they may have not seen is how differently people will react now when they watch Saving Private Ryan.

The scene in the beginning of the movie, showing the shot-up bleeding bodies of Americans slaughtered on the beach of Normandy, will now draw a response from many who watch The Pacific, thinking they deserved to die.

I will not watch the rest of the series; the first show was enough for me. I noticed that the biggest star in this film was an actor who guest starred in one season of 24, whose name escapes me.

Funny, but as Hanks and Spielberg are huge supporters of Obama, what do they think of his failure to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as he promised during his campaign.

It is also weird that Spielberg would make a movie, build a website about the Holocaust, then turn around, and show how barbaric American soldiers were after getting involved in a war where Hitler murdered millions of Jews.

The Pacific will do well for HBO's ratings, I presume. However, it will not spark a renewed interest in Charlie Wilson's War or any of Hanks' movies that have not lived up to the few movies he did with Denzel Washington or Kevin Bacon.

It will also not erase the memory of the day that "Japan deliberately and maliciously attacked" the US at Pearl Harbor.

And this is what I think of when I think of our veterans, Mr. Hanks:

Tom Hanks' The Pacific Miniseries on HBO

Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg pair up again as executive producers on an HBO miniseries, entitled "The Pacific" I have seen the numerous advertisements for this, and I thought I would enjoy it, until I found out the reason for this miniseries.

Time Magazine, no surprise, has Tom Hanks on the cover. Up until a few days ago, I did not know that Tom Hanks held the same liberal-left views as many of the lunatic fringe in Hollywood holds. What also surprises me is what Tom Hanks hinted at regarding Steven Spielberg's views and how similar they are to Hanks. In the Time interview Hanks, referring to himself and to Spielberg,

"Certainly, we wanted to honor U.S. bravery in The Pacific," Hanks says in the interview. "But we also wanted to have people say, 'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese people.' "

In sharp contrast to these views, Spielberg during the campaign to push his movie, "Schindler's List", the message was loud and clear from him that people never forget what happened to the Jews prior and during WWII. With Japan aligned with Germany during WWII, does any of Spielberg's feelings seem odd to anyone but me?

If Americans did not enter WWII, or into what Hanks and Spielberg call, "the barbarity of war", how many more would have died at the hands of Hitler? I cannot imagine why we would want to get our hands dirty helping in that war, do you?

In addition, they could not resist comparing WWII to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, attempting to disgrace and discredit those currently serving, as well as those who served all those years ago.

Considering Tom Hanks admits to Time Magazine that his "idea of American history was just a course you were forced to take," explains it for me. Hanks puts his foot further into his mouth by saying that he wants people to say, "'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese people."

However, he does admit that he also "wants Americans to understand the glories" of American History. I think it is generous of him, considering that "The Pacific" reads like any other smear campaign against American and the US military.

Oddly, they sold this miniseries to the United States, not to the Japanese people that Spielberg and Hanks believe we did an injustice to during WWII. Spielberg needs someone to remind him that before America's involvement in this barbaric act of war, Hitler slaughtered millions of his own people.

I thought it was gracious and generous of both of these men to begin the campaign to build a WWII memorial in Washington DC, to honor my dad and all WWII veterans. Now I understand that it was just another publicity stunt to grab the media's, and the American public's attention for us to see how gracious and generous they were.

Tom Hanks says he 'nodded off when his friends would tell him growing up about their father's experience onboard the USS Nimitz or the USS Enterprise or the USS Coral Sea'.

I say he can go back to sleep and wake up when he does a movie that does as well in the box office as Forrest Gump did, which was over 15 years ago.

For someone who starred in stupid comedy movies and an idiotic television show about men dressing as women to get into college, he received his lucky break when starring in Philadelphia, which in my opinion was just as much, if not more so, Denzel Washington's movie.

Not that he cares, because he will continue to make money "off the backs" of the brave men who fought and died in WWII. A Vietnam Veteran says it more eloquently than I can:

"He made his biggest hits on the backs of us combat veterans and he now trashes those that have protected this country. He is just as guilty of stolen valor as the rest of the phonies that have done so in the past."

As box office figures prove, he should stick to stupid and leave politics to the politicians.

Forrest Gump 329,694,499

Charlie Wilson's War 66,661,095

Looking at Spielberg's record, I would say he should stick with what he knows best, and that is man-eating machines. He should leave the war to those who have actually been in a war.

 Jaws 260,000,000

 Schindler's List $96,065,768

 $260,000,000 in 1975 was worth $1,081,825,433 today.

I do not need to watch The Pacific to know all I need to know about the brave men and women involved in WWII, who during Hanks' barbarity of war, saved many countries from Hitler's reign of terror.

As Sally Field (another leftwing nut with a few bolts missing) said as Forrest Gump's mother,"You never know what you're gonna git".

With Tom Hanks, that is certainly true.

Tom Hank's Pacific "a slow starter" in ratings, says Reuters

Hollywood Reporter says "HBO's costly World War Two miniseries "The Pacific" got off to a slow start on Sunday evening, delivering 3.1 million viewers. Read more at: HBO's "Pacific" wounded in first outing

Liberals' twist WWII history at historynet

Nowadays, it seems like a lot of people want to jump on the anti-war bandwagon.

Contrary to popular belief, anti-war movies do not make money and many people are tired of hearing about it. One only has to look at the poor ratings of The Green Zone and The Pacific, to know that this is true.

A site touting history, historynet.com, reviews Tom Hanks' The Pacific with words like the following: "The Pacific, the 10-episode HBO miniseries, captures the myriad realities of what hell does to its inhabitants—including moments of redemption."

Translated into anti-war rhetoric, this reads, 'veterans did horrible things during the war'.

What do you think goes on between troops on opposite sides of the war? Do you think the North and South played tag during the Civil War?

That I know of, this is the first time for an anti-WWII movie. The concept alone is fascinating, but not fascinating enough for me to want to watch it. Given that our WWII veterans are now all in their late 70's to late 80's, do we really want to send the message to America that these men are angry, bitter, and sorry for what they did? No, we do not.

The average American citizen during WWII was proud of our troops that went to war to end tyranny at the hands of Japan and Germany. At home, Americans did their part to help the war effort.

Sharp contrast to some Americans during the Vietnam War. Vietnam Veterans are painted as angry, bitter, gun-totin' 60 year old men. That could not be further from the truth. Despite the way they were treated when they came home, not as war heroes like our WWII veterans were, but as something the anti-war crowd wanted us to believe, but do not.

According to the historynet website, one scene in The Pacific shows how one Marine "nearly pukes on the award letter" that accompanied the Medal of Honor he received.

That alone sums up what I believe The Pacific is all about. It wants to try to prove that America is outraged because, as Hanks' put it, "we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods."

Hanks and the historynet are wrong. They are deliberately and maliciously attempting to disparage the courage and honor with which our WWII veterans served.

This attitude of Hanks and Speilberg makes me want to puke. Apparently, it makes others feel the same way as shown in the dismal Nielsen ratings:

The Pacific's first week "got off to a slow start on Sunday evening, delivering 3.1 million viewers."

"The second episode averaged 2.788 million versus 3.079 million in the previous week's premiere."

With a reported budget of $250 million to make, I for one hope they lose money on this venture. Maybe then they will understand that Americans are tired of hearing the anti-war rants.

History? More like fiction twisted to distort history and the memories of our WWII veterans. They should be ashamed of themselves. At least they will not make money off the veterans this time around.

Moses tops Tom Hanks' The Pacific on Easter Sunday

The Nielsen Ratings for Tom Hanks story of WWII, what he calls the "war of racism and terror", not for Japan's part but for America's role in it, dropped its measly ratings even further on Easter Sunday than in prior weeks.

On Easter, the ratings dropped to 2.5 million from the paltry 2.77 million the week before. Given that Hanks' war epic is based on a war he says was fought for the soul purpose of "killing the slanty eyed yellow man", does anyone wonder why?

The first episode was seen by 3 million people, while the second episode was seen by 2.8 million. Since this bomb cost more than 200 million to make, I am glad that viewers chose to watch The Ten Commandments on Easter Sunday instead.

The annual showing of The Ten Commandments drew in 3 times as many viewers as The Pacific, with 6.81 million people watching a movie they watch every year on Easter Sunday.

For me, there is no competition between an epic story of religious struggle and freedom taken from the Bible, and a story that trashes my country and its warriors, our veterans.