Lions for Lambs - Movie Meaning??? - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > General Off-Topic

General Off-Topic
Everything not about BMWs. Posts must be "primetime" safe and in good taste. You must be logged in to see sub-forums.
Click here to browse all new posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 06-03-2008, 04:12 PM   #1
Reedo302
Registered User
 
Reedo302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,301
My Ride: F30 328i M Sport
Lions for Lambs - Movie Meaning???

I just watched the movie Lions For Lambs, and it was a very enthralling and gripping movie. I enjoyed the movie immensely. The problem is that I'm a bit confused. If I look at the movie and take it for surface value, it's a great movie. The problem with the movie is that you have Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep in it and Robert Redford directed it. That means there's an underlying meaning to the movie.
So here's the question-is there a simple explanation to the movie, or was there multiple points that they were trying to make?

Points of interest in the movie that are open to interpretation:

#1
Tom Cruise (Sen. Irving) is talking up this big campaign and is doing a good job at getting me to believe that his character is vehemently dedicated to winning the War on Terror and eliminate all threats to the US. When the Senator gets the phone call that we all are led to believe informs him of the helicopter crash and the two surviving soldiers on the plateau, he becomes visibly upset and agitated. After the call, he gets upset for a moment, then continues his info session and it cuts out. What are we led to believe about that moment? Is he concerned about the welfare of the troops and mission, or is he upset that his initiative/plan had a hiccup and wasn't going as he planned? The movie makes no mention of the other missions that are theoretically occurring at the same time throughout Afghanistan that one can only assume were successful.

#2
At the end, Meryl Streep (Janice the reporter) is seen riding by national monuments in DC and she's starting to cry and looks stressed out. She spent a lot of time bickering with the Senator about the past, and it's no secret that she can't let the past go. She's adamant that she knows everything and that the Government knows nothing. The responses to her repeated comments about the past, particularly in Vietnam, seem to be a bit sparse and the Senator keeps trying to steer her towards the future. Is this supposed to mean that the movie makers want people to think about her position and convince us, the viewers, that she's right and that we're making the same mistakes as the past?

#3
Again, when Meryl Streep was seen riding around DC at the end, and then the disillusioned college student sees the ticker on the news about the new military initiative, are we led to believe that she told the story like she was told to do so? Are the movie makers trying to tell us that the news agencies are trying to keep Streep's personal and political bias out of the news, or are they saying that news agencies are just posting propaganda?

#4
Robert Redford (the college professor) does a good job telling his piece about the troops are the lions and the administrators/politicians are the lambs. The theme appears to be that the lambs are leading the lions. Is this a way of acknowledging the bravery and courage of the troops, with emphasis on Ernest and Arian when they enlisted in the Army? Or is it just a shot at the actual current administration?

#5
With the limited amount of development of the soldiers in this movie (granted, it's not a war film), was it just for effect of the movie to keep it on track, or are they trying to make troops out to be the pawns of the bureaucrats and that they're just doing what they're told?


Anyone have any thoughts, or other ideas??
(DISCLAIMER: Don't post if you don't plan on constructively contributing to the discussion)
__________________
DINAN3 F30 328i M Sport
DinanTronics Stage 1
Dinan Free Flow Black Tip Stainless Exhaust
Dinan Lowering Springs and Bumpstops
Dinan 20" Black Performance Wheels


Learning Firearms
Firearms training and hosted shooting courses



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reedo302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 05:22 PM   #2
kyle808
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston,TX
Posts: 938
My Ride: 00 328CI
1. I got the impression that the Senator was truly sad 2 troops were left to die.

3. The news station did not post what Janice the reporter really wanted to show
America. It basically end up posting exactly what the Senator wanted,
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"I'm gonna die! Jesus, Allah, Buddha - I love you all!
-Homer Simpson
kyle808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 05:31 PM   #3
Reedo302
Registered User
 
Reedo302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,301
My Ride: F30 328i M Sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle808 View Post
3. The news station did not post what Janice the reporter really wanted to show
America. It basically end up posting exactly what the Senator wanted,
And my question to that is this-why did they do that?

The movie left me with lots of questions. You're kinda left hanging.
I guess I would have had fewer questions if they hadn't used the actual current administration in the movie.
__________________
DINAN3 F30 328i M Sport
DinanTronics Stage 1
Dinan Free Flow Black Tip Stainless Exhaust
Dinan Lowering Springs and Bumpstops
Dinan 20" Black Performance Wheels


Learning Firearms
Firearms training and hosted shooting courses



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Reedo302; 06-03-2008 at 05:37 PM.
Reedo302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 06:15 PM   #4
CrashRide
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 113
My Ride: 2002 330ci
Send a message via AIM to CrashRide
I haven't seen it since the theaters, but I think I remember it pretty well and here's my 2 cents.

1. I don't believe the Senator really cared about the troops. He cared that his plan had a glitch in it and wasn't fulfilled properly. His concern was that the news would get back to America about the tragedy and lack of Intel in the mission that would eventually get the finger pointed at him. With America so tired of the War on Terror and more bad news in the papers this would hurt his chances of running for President.

2. Not sure with this point, but it seems to me that most of the USA thinks that we're making a mistake by being over there which is the same feelings during 'Nam. Redford was alive and well during 'Nam so I'm sure he's reliving it all over again.

3. I don't think her story was printed the way she wanted because the news she worked for couldn't go through with such a strong opinion. So yes push forth the propaganda and please the politicians in DC.

4. I think this point seems right. The politicians are the pansies (lambs) who just sit back and make policies. The soldiers/warriors (lions) have courage. Normally the saying would be Lambs for Lions. Meaning that Politicians are the hierarchy (lions) who just feed on the soldiers (lambs) when they keep sending the soldiers off to war to die.

5. Soldiers are pawns. They must do the bidding of the politicians and their commanding officers.

i never timed the movie or checked for the run time, but was this movie less than 90 mins? it seemed very fast short and the quick pace made it fly by even faster
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CrashRide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 07:39 PM   #5
coco savage
Registered User
 
coco savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CFBMW.org
Posts: 1,371
My Ride: 325i
interesting
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Quote:
he's just the resident off-topic ball breaker. Dont take it personally.
coco savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 08:49 PM   #6
sunstyle
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
I just watched the movie Lions For Lambs, and it was a very enthralling and gripping movie. I enjoyed the movie immensely. The problem is that I'm a bit confused. If I look at the movie and take it for surface value, it's a great movie. The problem with the movie is that you have Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep in it and Robert Redford directed it. That means there's an underlying meaning to the movie.
So here's the question-is there a simple explanation to the movie, or was there multiple points that they were trying to make?

Points of interest in the movie that are open to interpretation:

#1
Tom Cruise (Sen. Irving) is talking up this big campaign and is doing a good job at getting me to believe that his character is vehemently dedicated to winning the War on Terror and eliminate all threats to the US. When the Senator gets the phone call that we all are led to believe informs him of the helicopter crash and the two surviving soldiers on the plateau, he becomes visibly upset and agitated. After the call, he gets upset for a moment, then continues his info session and it cuts out. What are we led to believe about that moment? Is he concerned about the welfare of the troops and mission, or is he upset that his initiative/plan had a hiccup and wasn't going as he planned? The movie makes no mention of the other missions that are theoretically occurring at the same time throughout Afghanistan that one can only assume were successful.

#2
At the end, Meryl Streep (Janice the reporter) is seen riding by national monuments in DC and she's starting to cry and looks stressed out. She spent a lot of time bickering with the Senator about the past, and it's no secret that she can't let the past go. She's adamant that she knows everything and that the Government knows nothing. The responses to her repeated comments about the past, particularly in Vietnam, seem to be a bit sparse and the Senator keeps trying to steer her towards the future. Is this supposed to mean that the movie makers want people to think about her position and convince us, the viewers, that she's right and that we're making the same mistakes as the past?

#3
Again, when Meryl Streep was seen riding around DC at the end, and then the disillusioned college student sees the ticker on the news about the new military initiative, are we led to believe that she told the story like she was told to do so? Are the movie makers trying to tell us that the news agencies are trying to keep Streep's personal and political bias out of the news, or are they saying that news agencies are just posting propaganda?

#4
Robert Redford (the college professor) does a good job telling his piece about the troops are the lions and the administrators/politicians are the lambs. The theme appears to be that the lambs are leading the lions. Is this a way of acknowledging the bravery and courage of the troops, with emphasis on Ernest and Arian when they enlisted in the Army? Or is it just a shot at the actual current administration?

#5
With the limited amount of development of the soldiers in this movie (granted, it's not a war film), was it just for effect of the movie to keep it on track, or are they trying to make troops out to be the pawns of the bureaucrats and that they're just doing what they're told?


Anyone have any thoughts, or other ideas??
(DISCLAIMER: Don't post if you don't plan on constructively contributing to the discussion)



#1- Political moves always hold the interest of multiple parties and perceptions. Throughout the movie his character is somewhat explained via the pictures on the wall and his stating he graduated from West Point (if I remember right), hence him not having much combat experience but being one that is highly involved in developing missions (or that particular mission). As a ‘people’ we really can’t truly know what the underlining interests are being catered to by our ‘leaders’, it’s really up to you or us to make that call. Just my opinion of course.


#2 – I believe she first passes government buildings then passes a graveyard, making me believe they (the movie makers) are trying to convey the relationship between government and the deadly results behind some of their (our?) decisions, whether one feels they are right or wrong. (I.E. decision to go to war resulting in a high amount of casualties)

#3 – The news posting comes some time after the mission has already been executed and failed. Giving the impression how behind the media was in getting this news out and how far down the road we are with that particular war (for lack of a better word) post that mission. I don’t really recall the wording so I can’t really comment on the difference between what her opinion was and what the media ended up posting. There were a few more messages there imo but that’s mainly what I got out of it.


#4 – Lions for Lambs. The Lions sacrifice the lambs. They (the gov) are the lions and we the people are the lambs. That’s my overview of it, but the rest of my thought on this I will keep to myself.


#5 – They are conveying the people (the two soldiers) who truly believe in our country (the U.S) and their unconditional interest in protecting it and how our government takes advantage of that.

Just my opinions of course, not trying to start trouble.
sunstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 09:04 PM   #7
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
I just watched the movie Lions For Lambs, and it was a very enthralling and gripping movie. I enjoyed the movie immensely. The problem is that I'm a bit confused. If I look at the movie and take it for surface value, it's a great movie. The problem with the movie is that you have Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep in it and Robert Redford directed it. That means there's an underlying meaning to the movie.
So here's the question-is there a simple explanation to the movie, or was there multiple points that they were trying to make?

Points of interest in the movie that are open to interpretation:

#1
Tom Cruise (Sen. Irving) is talking up this big campaign and is doing a good job at getting me to believe that his character is vehemently dedicated to winning the War on Terror and eliminate all threats to the US. When the Senator gets the phone call that we all are led to believe informs him of the helicopter crash and the two surviving soldiers on the plateau, he becomes visibly upset and agitated. After the call, he gets upset for a moment, then continues his info session and it cuts out. What are we led to believe about that moment? Is he concerned about the welfare of the troops and mission, or is he upset that his initiative/plan had a hiccup and wasn't going as he planned? The movie makes no mention of the other missions that are theoretically occurring at the same time throughout Afghanistan that one can only assume were successful.
I thought he put his entire career on the line with that campaign, which he obviously took a longer time planning how to sell, than planning how to execute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
#2
At the end, Meryl Streep (Janice the reporter) is seen riding by national monuments in DC and she's starting to cry and looks stressed out. She spent a lot of time bickering with the Senator about the past, and it's no secret that she can't let the past go. She's adamant that she knows everything and that the Government knows nothing. The responses to her repeated comments about the past, particularly in Vietnam, seem to be a bit sparse and the Senator keeps trying to steer her towards the future. Is this supposed to mean that the movie makers want people to think about her position and convince us, the viewers, that she's right and that we're making the same mistakes as the past?
We're always making the same mistakes as we did in the past. Some we manage to avoid, but others, we miserably fail. I guess what the message you're looking for here is that one should always keep a watchful eye on the leaders/politicians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
#3
Again, when Meryl Streep was seen riding around DC at the end, and then the disillusioned college student sees the ticker on the news about the new military initiative, are we led to believe that she told the story like she was told to do so? Are the movie makers trying to tell us that the news agencies are trying to keep Streep's personal and political bias out of the news, or are they saying that news agencies are just posting propaganda?
I can't tell you what they're trying to say, but my interpretation (and I'm interpreting things a little my own way, since the movie obviously has a left slant to it) is that the media will run in herds, meaning there will be moments when it's popular to be right and moments when it's popular to be left of center, but the news will pretty much follow popular opinion or that which is easy to sell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
#4
Robert Redford (the college professor) does a good job telling his piece about the troops are the lions and the administrators/politicians are the lambs. The theme appears to be that the lambs are leading the lions. Is this a way of acknowledging the bravery and courage of the troops, with emphasis on Ernest and Arian when they enlisted in the Army? Or is it just a shot at the actual current administration?
I think it's both. I have admiration for people who defend their country. Less so for people who just want to join the military so they can shoot and blow **** up, but in any case, the people out there on the line are willing to leave their lives in some foreign country, while the politicians don't even show up to work when the weather sucks if they don't want to. If you look at the current crop of politicians, 99% aren't experts at anything, yet they proclaim to know everything. Their advisors and staff are no experts, but they read an excerpt of a book, they're fed information by so-and-so, and all of a sudden they know everything about Iraq, Iran, Global Warming, Gay Marriage, Hurricanes, and whatnot. These people are dumb. The only thing they're good at is selling themselves to the people. But we buy it.

As I see it, they're lambs in a way that they, too, run in herds, protected by each other, guarded by the secret service, etc. and fed by us, the people.

The lions, the ones doing the fighting, hunting, ensuring our safety, are led by them... the most disconnected of us all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
#5
With the limited amount of development of the soldiers in this movie (granted, it's not a war film), was it just for effect of the movie to keep it on track, or are they trying to make troops out to be the pawns of the bureaucrats and that they're just doing what they're told?
Well, of course they're doing what they're told. They thought they had some control over events, and they even had a plan for going into the military, coming out and making a change. Things didn't go their way, and they ended up dead. Yes, because of bureaucrats.

The lesson I see here is that we can't change the fact that they had no choice. They had to follow orders. They knew what they were getting into. Where I see that they (and we) have power is electing the right people who will make what we believe are the right decisions.

I wasn't very impressed with the movie.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:10 PM   #8
pwrsld12
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 342
i liked the movie though i admit its hard to get over crazy tom.

i tried recommending it to friends and when they find out tom was in it they lost interest.
pwrsld12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:21 PM   #9
ThaHooch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunriver, OR
Posts: 239
My Ride: E46 gone
I didn't like it...too much of Hollywood's slant on politics and not enough action...I was thoroughly disappointed.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

** Political sig removed **
ThaHooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:25 PM   #10
ghorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L.A.
Posts: 395
My Ride: 330ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaHooch View Post
I didn't like it...too much of Hollywood's slant on politics and not enough action...I was thoroughly disappointed.
Hollywood's liberal
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:
Doing drugs and having sex... oh wow big deal. Well it is actually a HUGE deal.
ghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:27 PM   #11
ThaHooch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunriver, OR
Posts: 239
My Ride: E46 gone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorn View Post
Hollywood's liberal
Don't cry buddy...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

** Political sig removed **
ThaHooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:33 PM   #12
ghorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L.A.
Posts: 395
My Ride: 330ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaHooch View Post
Don't cry buddy...


I just love how ppl b!tch about Hollywood's liberal leanings all the time

boo hoo
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:
Doing drugs and having sex... oh wow big deal. Well it is actually a HUGE deal.
ghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:39 PM   #13
ThaHooch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunriver, OR
Posts: 239
My Ride: E46 gone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorn View Post


I just love how ppl b!tch about Hollywood's liberal leanings
I can overlook some bias, but just about every movie that has to do with the current war is so far out in left field...

The last movie about the war I saw before this one was The Valley of Elah...it had a lot of potential and I enjoyed most of it, but the way they portrayed every returning soldier as a savage made me dislike it in the end.

I my opinion, Hollywood needs to pull itself toward the center a bit...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

** Political sig removed **
ThaHooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:42 PM   #14
ghorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L.A.
Posts: 395
My Ride: 330ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaHooch View Post
I can overlook some bias, but just about every movie that has to do with the current war is so far out in left field...

The last movie about the war I saw before this one was The Valley of Elah...it had a lot of potential and I enjoyed most of it, but the way they portrayed every returning soldier as a savage made me dislike it in the end.

I my opinion, Hollywood needs to pull itself toward the center a bit...


Well, considering this country has gone off the deep end since 9/11, I have no problem with it whatsoever. The Neo-cons dragged the center to the right, so now it's time to drag it back...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:
Doing drugs and having sex... oh wow big deal. Well it is actually a HUGE deal.
ghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 10:51 PM   #15
ThaHooch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunriver, OR
Posts: 239
My Ride: E46 gone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorn View Post
Well, considering this country has gone off the deep end since 9/11, I have no problem with it whatsoever. The Neo-cons dragged the center to the right, so now it's time to drag it back...
Whatevs...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

** Political sig removed **
ThaHooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 08:40 PM   #16
Reedo302
Registered User
 
Reedo302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,301
My Ride: F30 328i M Sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrsld12 View Post
i liked the movie though i admit its hard to get over crazy tom.

i tried recommending it to friends and when they find out tom was in it they lost interest.
Yeah, I don't know what to make of Tom Cruise and his magic powers...
__________________
DINAN3 F30 328i M Sport
DinanTronics Stage 1
Dinan Free Flow Black Tip Stainless Exhaust
Dinan Lowering Springs and Bumpstops
Dinan 20" Black Performance Wheels


Learning Firearms
Firearms training and hosted shooting courses



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reedo302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2008, 12:15 PM   #17
ghorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L.A.
Posts: 395
My Ride: 330ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedo302 View Post
Yeah, I don't know what to make of Tom Cruise and his magic powers...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:
Doing drugs and having sex... oh wow big deal. Well it is actually a HUGE deal.
ghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 11:52 PM   #18
///M sloWbus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 118
My Ride: 2001 330CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaHooch View Post
I can overlook some bias, but just about every movie that has to do with the current war is so far out in left field...

The last movie about the war I saw before this one was The Valley of Elah...it had a lot of potential and I enjoyed most of it, but the way they portrayed every returning soldier as a savage made me dislike it in the end.

I my opinion, Hollywood needs to pull itself toward the center a bit...

*casts thread ressurection lv. 10*

Did you even bother to watch the movie? Obviously you didn't because there's no anti-soldier 'liberal' slant here, at all. The title is indicative of that FFS. If anything, the movie is entirely anti-politician and anti-establishment. Redford's primary message is that good, young, capable men are being propagandized into fighting a foreign war over foreign resources instead of concentrating their capabilities at fighting the domestic policy war that keeps many American citizens oppressed through poverty and ultimately, political apathy.

People who always bitch about hollywood's liberal bias always repeat the same nonsensical message ad nauseam .. there's plenty of conservatives in hollywood too and plenty of pro-war, pro-hawk films to sate any red meat craving
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Last edited by ///M sloWbus; 02-05-2020 at 11:53 PM.
///M sloWbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.