Some political thoughts, Hamud.
What I was implying was that Cuba isn't some heavily totalitarian state controlled by zealots, where the people are crying out to liberate it. If America (and Britain) were capable of offering genuine military support to people - and the people genuinely wanted that external intervention, as opposed to invading them on a whim, stealing their resources and exacerbating the extremists - only then would some form of engagement be acceptable.
But no, my point was regardless of your view of a government you can't go breaking international law and destroying countless civilians, and chalking it up as acceptable collateral damage. The film's ending reflects that sort of 'anything goes', nationalistic, vigilante attitude, that, even if it was a justified conflict, would be abhorrent.
And yes I consider the Taliban, and Hezbollah, and Hamas (and by logical extension the Zionists we keep sponsoring) all bad. I agree with having to engage the right territories, once determining where the real perpetrators are, and then quickly leaving a new government to its own future. That hasn't happened this decade.
The tragedy of the 2000s hasn't been 9/11, it's been the exploitation of a tragedy, and the transformation of the world's largest army to a terror cell for economic gain, that has caused many more 9/11s. (We're pretty good at reporting and mourning our civilians but not theirs.) It hasn't been the first time it's happened, and I doubt it'll be the last.
It's hard to see how we can fight foreign extremists, when those defending us are fundamentalists themselves, with a similarly horrible, theocratic agenda.
Oh and Michael Bay should keep out of politics. Pearl Harbor was infinitely more offensive.
Happy trails, Hans.
"When the chips are down, these civilised people will eat each other."
reply
share