will american ground troops go to iraq to fight i.s.i.l. after all? what military leaders said on capitol hill. thousands of american troops are now headed to west africa to combat the out of control ebola epidemic. i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this". those stories and more ahead.

>> americans could be fighting on the ground. >> using specific operations. >> if we reach a point where the advisors should accompany iraq troops, i'll recommend it to the president. >> men and women and children are waiting to die. >> the united states will send 3,000 military personal. >> we are prepared to mobilize the world in ways that only america can. >> n.a.s.a. will resewage lauxing -- resume launching and is paying bowing and others $7 million. >> the president is willing to take on heat. >> the president broke his promise. . >> it makes the job harder for americans to vote at all. >> slamming c.b.s. from yanking a song from thursday night football. >> her business partner is cursing at you, you have to cut them loose. >> wild fires in california. >> igniting a tiny town

in minutes. >> i'm thankful my children are alive. >> we begin with a possibility that despite everything, american ground combat troops could be deployed to iraq to help the army fight i.s.i.l. terrorists. martin dempsey raised the possibility views in an appearance with defense secretary chuck hagel, before the senate armed services committee. >> if we reach a point where i believe our advisors should accompany iraq troops, i will recommend that to the president. >> when asked later if the president hadn't ruled out the option, general martin dempsey said he had until now. >> at this point the stated policy is we will not have u.s. forces for stated combat, but to come back on a case-by-case basis. >> in northern iraq kurdish peshmerga battle i.s.i.l., and

u.s. war plains support army forces fighting i.s.i.l. not far from baghdad, and in baghdad the parliament defied haider al-abadi, by rejecting his picks for interior and defence ministers. in syria bashar al-assad met with security advisors for a briefing on the developments in iraq's war with i.s.i.l. >> for more, i'm joined from washington by douglas oliphant, former national security council, and served two duties in iraq. he served in afghanistan and is a senior national security fellow at the new america foundation. good to see you. let's talk about what we heard op criminal christopher gibson. the obama said this is a counterterrorism operation. then they changed that to a war again i.s.i.l., like the war against al qaeda with no ground troops. in case anyone had doubts,

defense secretary chuck hagel said we were at war with i.s.i.l. general martin dempsey said he will ask the president on a case-by-case basis to send in troops, special operators. sounds like we have gone from mission creep to gallop and it hasn't been a week. >> to be fair to the chairman, i think he said if the conditions warranted he'd go back and ask the president for troops. that's the military advisor's responsibility. general martin dempsey is the military advisor to the president, not the political advisor to the president. sending u.s. troops to iraq remains politically impossible. it's not politically popular in iraq. we still have many politicians in iraq saying they'd oppose the return of u.s. troops to iraq, even in the dire circumstances. >> the reality is - isn't it semantition, we have 16 hunt troops there. >> they are there, but in

embassies, in onsolutes. no one is troubled with u.s. troops. obviously if you start to put brigades worth of troops, or even a couple of hundred special forces advisors on the front lines they are more visible and provocation to the iraqi populous. >> a group of analysts, one of whom who was significant in 2007 surge, issued a paper calling for 25,000 ground troops in iraq and syria. american troops, in order to defeat i.s.i.l. again, you were there for the surge, and obviously that worked. should - despite what you said about the lack of willingness on the united states part and the iraqi part, should a second surge be considered if that's what it takes to win. >> i don't think so. the military benefit of sending

225,000 u.s. troops would be obvious. i think what is missed is how that would complicate the politics on the ground in iraq and syria. putting together a coalition and keeping it together is going to be really hard under the best of conditions. throwing american troops into the mix in a very, very complicated bissin teen set of relationships would make this harder. >> let's talk syria and listen to something that general dempsey had to say. >> given a coalition of cape ail and willing partners, i believe we can restore the iran - collection, the iraq-syria border and interrupt so in syria. >> what are we talking about, destroying i.s. and iraq, but not in syria. >> initially. the plan about evolve. at some point the president will have to make a decision about

syria. he doesn't have to make them today, this month or this calendar year. it was a campaign to acknowledge that it will take months, a year or two or three, so we have time to work what will happen on the serious side of the border. we will not engage across the depth in detail. the u.s. said it will refuse to coordinate the war plans with the syrian government. we made no bones about how we want the syrian president to go. he's been a brutal dictator. he met with the security advisor. if the iraqis are dealing with bashar al-assad. aren't we dealing with him though the proxy. in the video bashar al-assad looks happy, is he a winner? states have to talk to their neighbours, if we have our differences with the mexicans

and canadians, we have to talk to them. the iraqis have to talk to the iranians and the syrians, and know what is going on with their neighbours, it doesn't mean that they are happy with the bashar al-assad government. i have been doing iraq long enough to remember when they were upset about the bashar al-assad government funnelling foreign fighters from syria into iraq, in the 2006, '07 and '08 period. there are tense relationships with the neighbours, but you still have to talk to them. >> congress may vote on wednesday on arming and training syrian moderates. a congressman said it's not clear if the moderate free -- free syrian army is moderate. how big a problem will it be figuring out who we work with? >> it will be an issue. the free syrian army does exist. it's a loose group of militias

that for the most part defend the towns and villages that they live in, it's not nothing. it's helpful, keeping i.s.i.l. from overrunning more territory. turning them into a force that can hold terrain that they take back from i.s.i.l., that's something else. >> what about the conflict within iraq's government. our military support was supposed to be predicated on them establishing a government including sunnis and kurd, not just the shia. they can't confirm the prime minister's forces for the interior and defence minister ris. >> the prime minister nominated sa sunni to be the defence minister, and a shia from a different party than his to be the interior minister. part of this is he's putting together the coalition. neither of these candidates are from his party. they are part of the spoils that went to other parties is that won seats in the coalition. he'll have to go back to the two

parties that nominated these two and get another two candidates that are more acceptable. we are working. the prime minister put people forward, they went forward, they were not confirmed and they'll have to go through another round. democracy is messy. >> and the whole situation throughout the region is messy, to say the least. >> it is. >> douglas oliphant, as always, it's a pleasure to have you with us. for more, we are joined by alan gershawitz. he has written a 5-pard op ed series focused on the war on terror and surveillance, and the author of "terror tunnels - the justification for israel's war against hamas." >> it's interesting how the technology chainingsed. i can -- changed. i can write a book and have it

published as quick as an article in the "globe." >> you finished thursday and it's published. >> amazing. >> you said there should be congressional authorisation for us to get into iraq, especially if we have to use ground troops. we talked about general martin dempsey, saying he will ask for ground troops. how important is it that president obama - likely this will be a long war. get that authorisation from congress. >> it's a real war. it will take many years, will not be soexed immediately. >> when we have allowed the president to engage in warfare, it's not turned out well. it's so much better if we have congress and the president agreeing, and... >> what about the president who says he thinks the authorisation issued before the 9/11 attacks is sufficient for what he is doing now. that was specific to those

connected to the worse terror attack in history. >> i don't think legislation of that kind conditions. i suspect after the congressional elections everyone will be more comfortable. it's the best way, the way the constitution sets it out, that congress has the right to declare war. congress hasn't declared war since pearl harbor. >> a point you make is that traditional rules. american and international law to deal with conventional law firrar anna caristic. that we are constrained by laws. what should we do. >> we have to fight with one hand behind our back, but have to maintain the upper hand. israel has provided a model. it's never perfect, for how to do this.

hamas imbeds fighters amongst civilians. israel, therefore, has to take great precautions, and give warnings, and have to have bomblets that knock on the roof, and civil 2,000 people were killed. america is going to cop front the same -- confront the same situation. i.s.i.s. is getting front. they are embedding fighters amongst civilians, and use hostages as human shields, we have to figure out how to get leaders without getting civilians. >> you have no problem with targetting assassination. >> as long as they are combatants. doesn't matter if they are american or not. as long as they are combatants, they are legitimate targets. the only question is can you kill or cabinet them without too many civilian casualties. if you can, that's the way to

go. clinton regrets maybe not having got osama bin laden in the 1990, when he may have prevented 9/11. >> his concern then was if he had gone after osama bin laden, he would have killed the number of civilians, that is the challenge - i'm not sure if that is the best word, that israel faces in having to deal with hamas using rocket launchers near civilian population. the u.s. has to deal with i.s.i.l. the issue of proportionality comes up. >> it doesn't mean the same number of israelis have to be killed as palestinians. portionality is if there's a military target and it's legitimate. but you have to kill civilians to get the target, the value has to be proportional. it's a matter of degree and has to be made in the fog of war. >> that's an awful difficult - awfully difficult calculation.

>> that's what you have to do. "new york times" did a story the other day about a big apartment building. command center. it was a residential building. israel warned every person in the building, a high-rise. everyone got out. the building was destroyed. that's proportionality. if there's one hamas fighter and he is near the school. and goes after him to kill a bunch of kids, that would be a war crime. that balance has to be struck. >> a question that fits into the general conversation here, something that you have come out about recently. you expressed your opinion about recently. you thought president obama should not yn in support of the arab spring as he was. >> hindsight was 2020. no one anticipated the arab spring. i predict here that nobody nose

what will happen in turkey in 10 years, or wh the jordan kingdom will survive or what will happen with the emirates. the only country you can be sure that will remain a strong american ally is israel. that's the only country. it provides intelligence, helps technology and will always be supportive of the united states. >> if you advised president obama as an advisor, what would you tell him to do? >> go and get approval of congress, maybe wait until after the election. make sure everything you do is on sound legal grounds, have legal adviceors tell you when you can and can't attack a target surrounded by civilians. do everything with one hand behind your back, and the other raised to destroy an enemy out to get western civilisation. >> a lot of thought-provoking writing in your series.

and the new book is terror tunnels, a case for israel's war against hamas. great to have you with us. now for more stories from around the world. >> we begin in ukraine. we put ukraine on the path to membership in the e.u. the refusal to sign the agreement by viktor yanukovych launched the protest leading to his ouster. ukraine approved two measures aimed at maintaining the ceasefire at russian separatists. in a closed law session. self rule was granted for three years, as well as amnesty for rebels that did not commit war crimes. we head to california, where a wildfire forced children to flee

from their school. the rapidly spreading fire has destroyed more than 100 buildings including a church. 2,000 residents were evacuated. the fire is only about 20% contained. no deaths have been supported. it's not clear how the fire started. a dozen wildfires were burning in california alone. >> naza announced it has awarded contraumatics to boeing and spacex. since n.a.s.a. retired the space shuttle in 2011, the u.s. has had no way to transport astronauts to the intrgsal space center. having to pay russia at a cost of $70 mullion a seat. >> the greatest nation on earth shouldn't have to rely on other nations to get in space. >> in is apparent as relations with russia have deteriorated. it will allow the space agency

to focus on grander goals, including putting people on mars by 2030. that is some of what is happening around the world. coming up, president obama says the ebola crisis is spiralling out of control and announces 3,000 troops to go to africa. friendly fire on immigration from the developments. we joined by a congressman to discuss the process. and harmeli aregawi tracks the web. >> the ray rice saga sparks a battle between a sports network and a victim of domestic violence. i have the details coming up. >> what do you think - join the conversation on twitter and facebook and google+ pages.

hey, jennar fuzz mike troober munny sling... awwwwww scram! i'm crust mike jubby roll bond chow gonna lean up an kiss bet. peas charty get town down. [laughter]

♪ borf a liver tute face stummy wag ♪ pow pam sha-beeps stella nerf berms. saxa-nay nay? badumps a head. temexiss gurrin. juppa left. fluppa jown! brone a brood. what? catch up on what everyone's talking about with the x1 entertainment operating system. preloaded with the latest episodes of the top 100 shows. only from xfinity.

the largest ebola epidemic in history is showing no signs of slowing down. in atlanta at the c.d.c. on tuesday, president obama call on the international community to act to help the people of west africa. >> the reality is the epidemic will get worse before it gets better. right now the world has an opportunity to save countless lives, right now. the world has the responsibility to act. >> according to the world health organisation, nearly 5,000 people have fallen ill and 2400 died. the president is hopeful. >> the world nose how to fight this disease, it's not a mystery, it's not a science. we know how to prevent it spreading, and how to care for those who contract it. if we take the proper steps we can save lives. >> we are joined by a virologist

who worked in sierra leone studying fevers, working to identify cases and train workers in containment. he returned from the region last month. it's good to see you again. the president announced that the u.s. will send 3,000 troops to west africa, the effort, the largest response is called separation united assistance, and will be commanded by an army general, and the president is asking congress for $88 million. the department of defense is looking at allocating half a billion. >> the world health organisation says that the number of cases is growing exponentially. do you think the major operation by the u.s. will be enough to stop the spread? >> well, the response from the international community up to this point is too little and too light. i'm glad that president obama and the u.s. government are taking a leadership role on this. i'm hoping that responses like this will have an impact, but it

will take more than this. >> listen to a response that we heard from a resident of monrovia, the capital of liberia, to the u.s. sending troops. >> what we need now is drugs, vaccines. >> there are no vaccines ready for widespread use, there will not be for some time. is the best step what the u.s. is doing, dealing with the logistics of the getting a massive medical response up and running, and if that is the case, why do people in the thick of it - why don't they under that. why do they have a misunderstanding of what is going on? >> well, the u.s. military can play an important logistical

role to get people, resources, vehicles and food into the area. no one does it better than the u.s. military. it's not the guns, but the logistics. >> talking about the money, the world health organisation said it would take 600 million to contain the ebola threat. the money is coming in. maybe it's late in the game, but it's coming in from the u.s., e.u., the gates foundation, the u.s. military. how quickly can that money and this logistical effort - how quickly can it make a difference? >> it will take a while to get the troops into west africa. this money, the resources, need to be wrougbrought to the front lines, we need to identify the cases, the contacts. they need to be traced, quarantined. the effort will take a while to get off the ground. >> the president said it's unlikely anyone will get to the

u.s. with ebola, but they are taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen. are you concerned that this strain of the ebola seems to be transmitted more easily than others in the past? >> our groups looked at the mutation, it's faster than it was when circulating with the animals in the rainforest. the changes that the virus has undergone do not seam to affect how it is -- seem to affect how it is transmitted. we need to be vigilant and look at the counter strains than what the previous study did, and remain on guard against a change in the virus that could make it spread more easily. >> everyone says the likelihood of the virus mutating is slim. we are hearing about children getting ebola. could it be that it's getting transmitted by more casual contact than other strains of the virus in the past?

>> anything is possible with this virus. it could become more pattedo genic or less -- pathogenic or the less. the more we allow it to spread in humans, the more likely it will change making it more easy to spread. more or less pathogenics, either could be bad in terms of the ultimate number of cases. >> could it - mild good new and all this, it might be less deadly than in the past. if we look at the newest numbers from the w.h.o., there's almost 500 cases. >> 2,460 died. half the people have decide so far. more may die. many are sick. it seems that the mortality rate is lower than in prior outbreaks, where we heard as many as 90% of people were dying. >> the mortality rate is closer

than 70%. official members do not reflect cases counted in the statistic, it can be a bit misleading. 70% is average, it's a high case fatality rate. it may not be a thing for it to come down, because it could easily spread. >> 70% mortality is horrific. good to have you on the show. >> my pleasure. turning to the politics of immigration reform, a topic we'll focus on more intensely as we head into the fall political season. immigration reform is an issue that president obama pushed hard and put off, much to the frustration of the advocates, including the caucus. despite promising he'd use his powers to change the way it is

enforced the president said he will not do that until after the election and politics had nothing to do with the decision. >> when i take executive action, i want to make sure it's sustainable. i want to act because it's the right thing for the country. it will be more sustainable and effective if the public understands what the facts are, what we have done on unaccompanied children. and why it's necessary. >> for more, i'm joined from washington d.c., by a democrat representing illinois's fourth district. he is the author of still dreaming. as always, good to have you. you are a leader. the congressional his panic cauc caucus. you laid out what you expect to see in the president's plan. you talked to the house and described what you called the tough but fair solutions to

immigrants who are without visas and who are living and working here. >> it would work something like this - if they come forward, submit fingerprints at the expense of the fbi and pass a background check, we'll issue them a biometric identification card saying they are not a priority. >> there are reports that the hispanic caucus wants a submitment from the white house to go bigger when it acts on immigration. what does that mean? >> i think when we met with the white house official, with the chief of staff and others from the white house. they said they were asking for forbearance. if you or i ask for forbearance at the bank, we have to pay extra interest, penalty, more. if i am at home, and screw up with children and my wife. we'll make it up to them, to us,

by being broader, more generous. in terms. executive authority. i think the american public and community expect something bigger and broader from the president obama administration, and i'm hopeful that is what we'll see. >> the screw up, to use your words, is that the president said he will act on immigration, he delayed it. the "new york times" published a harsh editorial. it was called another broken promise on immigration, criticising the president for treating immigrants and advocates like you as expendable. you wrote that the president should have taken action to be more transparent. he says whatever he does will be sustainable after the election. >> here is what i have done. i pivoted away from the

criticism. i gave speeches and interviews. i talked about how i was disillusioned when you walk away from values and principles, it's the wrong thing to do, and immigrants should be protected by the democratic party, not when it's politically wise or expedient. what many certainties were saying to the -- senators were saying to the president is wait until after the election, delay actions without taking into consideration the democratic effect that the broken system has on the people it supports, and 10 million that it hurts, by not allowing them to get right with the law. what i'm saying is look, you usually don't get fairness and justice when you do things that are politically wise to do. you don't get public policy that you are proud of.

let's not do the smart political thing, let's do it with spare, with just - let's stand up for our principle and values all of the time. in 2012, the immigrants, you remember, you were part of those that looked and analysed how it was. president obama and the democratic party were so triumphant, and one after the other opinion centered on the immigrant. hispanic vote, asian and what they meant. look, the people came out to vote. you should keep your promise to them, and we shouldn't have political considerations in this election cycle because it doesn't look good. you should stand up for the immigrant community all the time. >> to your point of talking about principle, and you mentioned the senators pressuring the president to put off decisions, a political poll shows two-thirds of voters in competitive house and senate districts this fall disapprove

of the way the president handled immigration. has immigration turned into a liability for democrats. >> let me tell you one thing - there were 2 million latinos voting in successive elections. you want to turn away from immigration, you push away from 900,000 that turn 18 every year, and they are all-american citizens. it's a growing community and cares about the fate of 11 million in this country. asians care. and they are core groups of the democratic party, let's stand up for them today. i know where the american people are at. they are on our side. the washington - whether it's the "new york times" or the "wall street journal," everyone is focussed and reached a consensus that immigration reform is the way forward. >> polls show that the majority

of americans want immigration reforms. important issue going into the midterms, a pleasure to have you with us. thank you for joining us. >> keep doing well, good to have spoken to you. >> time to see what is trinding on the web. >> c.b.s. and rihanna have cut ties. it's a messy divorce. following the suspension of raven's player ray rice, rihanna pulled rihanna's song from the opening season in which the ravens were playing. they cut a comedic segment. it was speculated that the move was because of a trin incident because of rihanna and chris brown. some thought the reference to a dangerous love afford may have had something to do it. c.b.s. chairman explained multiple aspects were pulled

saying: . >> rihanna took to twitter with strong words: following the tweets, c.b.s. announced it was replacing the song for the remainder of the season: the single's label rock nation said it was their decision, and said: let us know what you think of this battle.

tweet us. straight ahead - the first test of a ceasefire between israel and hamas, as a mortar is fired. >> why millennials are falling behind the generations that go before them. and do hit movies reflect the people that pay to see them. rose mcgown joins us with a surprising disparity.

just as the united nations reached a deal with israel and the palestinians to begin reconstruction of gaza, a mortar was fired from gaza into

southern israel, it's the first since the ceasefire, the attack underscoring how there's little progress towards reaching a lasting peace. a framework was laid out in the camp david peace accords in 1978. 36 years later it is ilusive, but the unlikely peace between israel and egypt is intact. how did president jimmy carter, anwar sadat and others succeed where others failed? joining us from seattle washington is pulitzer prize-winning author lawrence wright, staff writer for a magazine and awarded the pies for "looming tower", his new book:. >> great to have you with us. this was as unlikely a piece as there has been. one of the obstacles is something you bring to life. you bring the leaders and their

imperfections to us. first, most important, you describe how sadat and bagan could barely look at each other. >> they could barely look at each other. >> carter thought if he could get the two men alone in the woods, they'd like and trust each other, and find their way to peace. he couldn't have been more mistaken about na. after the second stay he had to block their path to keep them from leaving camp david. >> despite the fact they had a history of fighting british colonialists, committing what would be seen as terrorist acts. >> yes, they had a lot in common. they didn't like to acknowledge that. sadat was an assassin, and he had been part of this thing called a murder club. they used to kill british officers during the british occupation - mostly guys that

were drunk and wandered the streets alone. he was eager to kill the prime minister, missed on a couple of occasions, but succeeded in killing another official. bagon had been a terrorist, the head of yagoon, which had driven the british out of palestine with his terrorist acts, and turned his attention to the palestinians, was responsible for the beginning of the palestinian exodus, because of the destruction of that village. these were men with blood on their hands. >> yes, they were. they had that in common. religion is also something as playing an important part. jimmy carter told you that he had believed that he wanted peace in the holiland. bagan was secular. but he was there.

>> they were all three men of religion. sadat was a pious muslim. he called himself the first man of islam. and bagon was an orthodox jew, not as practices as carter and sadat, but scarred by the hollow caused and devoted to jewish affairs, and they had come together to solve a problem that religion caused. that comes across as a hero. he obstinately would not let sadat and bagan walk away. would they be better to agree to a deal today? >> they were flawed characters and carter was a failing and

unpopular president. i don't think you could assemble a less likely cast of characters to make peace. one thing he had was political courage. that may be the difference today. >> long term consequences. there has been no violation that the treaty remain at peace. israelis and palestinians can't figure out the peace, and you wrote that the palestinian accords severed egypt, saying without a powerful arab champion palestine became a mascot. in a way, could that have hurt or delayed the possibilities of an iranian-palestinian solution. >> it's possible. the camp david accords are divided into two parts. the peace between israel and

egypt. which was accomplished and as you said never had a violation. the second part was a roadmap between israel and the palestinians. the palestinians were not represented at example caved. every peace attempt since then has been an effort to finish the example david accords. the second part that has never been achieved. >> the irony is that it will be the greatest achievement. but in their own ways they suffered great lose. carter had a bump in popularity after camp david, but lost to ronald reagan, he was the first democratic nominee not to have a

majority of the jewish foal, an interesting punish the to a man that made peace. sadat was assassinated. it was signing his death warrant. and bagan, after camp david. he invaded lebanon, which was a catastrophe for the lebanese people and the israelis, and it went on for years and years. something that he thought would be over in days. had he not signed the camp david, it may be israel will not have felt impossiblied to go into lebanon. after the war, he went into solution until his zath. each was marked in a way tragically by their bringing peace in the holy land. >> it's 13 days in september, a powerful description of an

important event in our lift. >> lawrence wright, appreciate you joining us. good to see up. >> it's a pleasure. movistar rose mcgown goes behind the camera. why mistaken find marriage and the first home unattainable goals. that's in the data dive next.

today's data dive has an eye on millennials, because things are rough for young adult. they can't do many of the things their parents took for granted. "the washington post" took a look and found more than a third of people aged 13-21 lived with their parents, the highest percentage in four decade, 21.6 million. that may be a reason why three-quarters of millennials are not married. up from 60% at the turn of the century. if you think it's because young people don't want to get tied down, think again. the vast majority wants to get married, but the high costs makes it hard to afford. home ownership for young americans are at record lows. only about a third of people under 35 own their home, the lowest since the sensis kept track in 1982. two big reasons, houses are more

expensive and banks more selective with mortages. the highest cost comes with shrinking opportunities. in 1980 the average worker earnt a medium salary by age 36. today they don't get there until they are 30. the economy is not creating enough jobs. from 1987 to 2,00030 million net jobs were added in the u.s. since then 4 million. no wonder 4.6 million young people are without a job. coming up, movistar rose mcgowan on why there are few female characters in films. >> i'm john seigenthaler, after "consider this", the new reality of the war against i.s.i.l., possibly involving american troops on the ground. suiting up to tackle the ebola virus. we teach you about the tough

safety measures health workers are dealing with, including getting in and out of the suits. details on n.a.s.a.'s big announcement. all that and more coming up after "consider this", hope you join us then.

>> sharks like affection >> spot on... >> don't try this at home... >> tech know, only on al jazeera america

more than half the people that go to movies are women. they are badly represented on screen. a san diego study found less than one in three top speaking characters were women, and 15% of protagonists. why is there a disparity between who is in the seats and on the screen. rose mcgowan joins us, she starred in a wide variety of films, from screen and grind house, and from tv shows "charmed" and "nip tuck", and she is directing, "dawn" runs on friday and she is pairing it with seven films featuring women characters. i know to be eligible for the grammy awards you have to do an oscar running run in los angeles. you decided to play a classic film with a female league

character with your film. why did you decide to do it na way? >> i think we have seen enough men, obviously, with the stat strks, it was obvious. it's like a study of female aim oppression, depression and empower. really, ultimately. and for me, it's herald a mob that could have been two male friends. that's a movie, or like "thelma and louise", it's a lot of male writers, it doesn't occur to them to make them female. if they do, it's a derivative of a character that has been done. the tipping point into taking seven years off, i was on the cover of "rolling stone", with a buffont hair do and ammo belt, and i thought it's got to be better, and i want to be part of the voice making it happen. >> the choices you made - it's a

tremendous range from "16 candles", to "rosemary's baby", with important female pratt agonists. you are making a point for women film-makers. when you look at the film you chose, one was written by a woman, none directed by a woman, that spells out the problem of the lack of female film makers. >> completely, and it's what is available on a d.c. p, which is what you need to screen, which is the technology, and what has been transferred. i'd like to do - dollar amazing female directors. jane campion and such, weren't available. >> your film is dark, it debuted at sundance, you were compared to david lynch in one of the reviews, and you start to build the tension from the beginning. i'm not sure i could have handled it for a full length.

let's show a clip "dawn" is based on 15-year-old and falling for someone that may be a wrong boy, and she switched dresses with a friends of one of the boys, a joke that turns serious. >> surprise. >> what the hell is this? >> i like the dress. >> you can't wear it. you won't be able to wear it. >> what's that? >> nothing. >> you need to take off the dress. >> that really shows some of the techs that you build in that -- tension that you build this that movie. why did you want to tell the story? >> i wanted to explore the ju. tea position when -- jump tea position where someone is raised

by society and maternal influences to be defenseless, in all things, manners, and set it in a camelot era when it was exaggerated, what happens when someone who an a lamb, meets up with somebody who possibly is a wolf. and is shows that era in women, that women around 60 might now. i'm fascinated they were raised by '50s mothers", and later they join the sexual revolution, and it's not cool, but meanwhile you have been programmed to please the men. i wanted to study the dicot my. what happens when you mix defenseless with politeness. >> that comes across strongly, towards the end of the film. going back to the academy award, when cate blanchett accepted her oscar for "blue jasmine", she said: female centric films,

"fault in our stars", "the hunger games" - women's films are making a lot of money for hollywood. why are more female-centric films not being made. >> i don't think it's that they are telling me things, it's what i'm watching, and seeing and living. i think it's myopic views, i don't think i necessarily know - it's an old guard of people at the helm. not that they are old, but an inbred misogamy, and it's du

culture of people, how people are meant to think about women in field, that they don't question it. i played a role that was thurrick and it was changed to murrick to me. all they did was change a ward. we make up 50% of the audience, usually dragging boyfriends and husbands and it's absurd. it's boring. ultimately it bores me. we have 23 superhere movies. that's - and marvel are - john hanson is the sidekick. >> women films with strong characters have been doing well in the superhero part of the world. we'll see what happens. >> they'll wear small outfits. congratulations. i know you have other movies in store as a director, and we wish you best of luck with your new

career. >> the short film begins a week-long run "dawn", on friday. that's all for now, the conversation continues on the website aljazeera.com/considerthis or facebook or google+, at twitter or tweet me. see you next time. hi, this is al jazeera america, i'm john seigenthaler in new york. stopping i.s.i.l. - america's top general says the u.s. might put boots on the ground. >> the ebola outbreak, u.s. troops heads to west africa. hotel chain -