Were you, personally, bothered in any way by this movie's military inaccuracies?

As in, they won't happen that way in real life as they are portrayed in this movie?

Or were you alright with it or didn't have too huge a problem with it and were able to suspend disbelief while watching it?

For instance, and this is only one out of the few others, when Travolta's character says "You have no right... to an attorney, to remain silent, you're in the army..." to Woods' character (also, even if its not true, could it be possible, given his character, that he said it in order to INTIMIDATE and MANIPULATE him into complying and co-operating with him rather than telling the whole truth and explaining all his rights etc to him?), did that really bother you?

Or the fact that for only being a Warrant Officer Travolta's character was able to threaten and physically attack suspects and argue his way past Colonels and Generals without getting so much as a warning?

Or even what happens around the film's main most disturbing theme and plot of the movie?

In some ways, I myself was a little bothered by it but in other ways yeah I was able to suspend disbelief like I often do with action movies, to an extent of which this movie also a little happens to be one as well.

I also think the bit a little after the beginning when Travolta's character says "This must be one of those Freudian..." and then finishes his sentence to punch Peter Weireter's character sort of sets the tone and mood for this film and unwittingly tells audiences what kind of movie it is going to be - a mostly far from perfect and not entirely serious film but with some pretensions of intellect and seriousness amongst at least elements designed for entertainment, a mostly routine Blockbuster-type movie that tries a little to be more but without actually BEING that "more", I wonder if that part was intentional either on Travolta's or the writer's or director's or all of them part.