""The cats were located within the wood pile and euthanized. The cats were removed from the wood pile and taken from the residence. The complainant's husband advised that the mother feral cat had been roaming around for several years and he had tried to remove the feral kittens himself but they would hiss and growl at him."
1. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
2. Back to the Future Part II (1989)
3. The Godfather, Part II (1974)
4. Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
5. A Shot in the Dark (1964)
6. Aliens (1986)
7. The Road Warrior (1981)
8. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
9. Dawn of the Dead (1978)
10. Superman II (1980)
11. Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
12. The Dark Knight (2008)
13. Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
14. National Lampoons European Vacation (1985)
15. Evil Dead II (1987)
16. Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)
17. Problem Child 2 (1991)
18. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
19. Return to Oz (1985)
20. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Trouble with this is ok, if the US made friends with Ho there would have been an insurgency fully bankrolled by the USSR somewhere else, as much as the US was humiliated by Vietnam the USSR was shitting it's pants quite soon as their supposedly awesome technology and battle doctrine got cut to pieces.
For example they thought their SAMs would completely wipe US air power from the skies, this did not happen despite them releases more and more advanced models to Vietnam via China which they did not want to do for fear of reverse engineering
Also as to the US military's performance, they always saw it as a sideshow and rotated most junior officers out after only six months, the idea being to get as many of them blooded as possible in preparation for World Wart Three in Germany rather than being effective in that actual theatre
In short, they bear suit man is presumably giving felatio to the man in the suit. There is no explanation in the movie about it, it's just supposed to be an extremely strange scene in the movie about the strange occurances at the hotel and it's former owners. It may have been explained in scenes cut from the film, but that is not known. It does, however, have a place in the book:
From IMBD.com FAQ about the Shining:
To understand what's going on, you have to have read the book.
At a point about three quarters of the way through the novel, when "the hotel was running things," as Jack is about to be served his first drink by the Overlook, Danny walks out of the Torrences' apartment within the hotel and attempts to go to Jack and stop the Bad Thing from happening. Blocking his way, however, is a man "dressed in some sort of silvery, spangled costume. A dog costume...." Danny asks to be let by, but the costumed man begins barking and howling and threatening to "eat [Danny] up," starting with his "plump, little cock." The man then makes references to "blowing down" Harry Derwent, and continues to menace Danny until the boy goes back inside the Torrences' living quarters. Later, during one of those time-bending sequences when the hotel brings its past back to life, the mystery man's identity is explained. One of the Overlook's former owners was a man named Horace Derwent, an eccentric Howard Hughes type who poured over three million into restoring the Overlook after WWII, hoping to make it "the Showplace of the World." At one of his lavish masques thrown for the benefit of the rich and famous, Horace played mockingly with one of the guests - Roger - who was dressed up like a dog. During the hotel's "re-enactment" of the party for Jack, a gorgeous woman explains to him that Derwent is bisexual ("AC/DC...although he never goes for repeats on his DC side"), and Roger is a former lover. According to the woman, Horace told Roger "if he came to the masked ball as a doggy, a cute little doggy, he might reconsider (having sex with Roger)." Although no actual sex scene between Roger, the costumed man, and Derwent is described in the book, Kubrick's vision is a logical extension of their relationship.
It's difficult to say why this scene remains in the film, as it's somewhat confounding without all of the setup that King provides in the book. Perhaps its jarring incongruity is reason enough for its i