This movie has little, if any political bias. The opening attack is a classic 'you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't' scenario. They set it up to be the kind of judgment call that even the best person could screw up...and that's just it, it was a pure judgment call that could have gone either way.
As for the computer trying to overthrow the government, again you are missing the point if you think that the story was siding with the computer in that. The computer is running amok, the computer made a decision itself to do that thing, not because it was programmed to but because it's own artificial intelligence made a decision to do so. It acted on its own volition, believing its own was was also the "will of the people," not that of any political faction or ideology.
It made a computational calculation that since the actions of the current government in power had caused more harm than good for the nation they must be removed (the political party of the President was never mentioned, by the way). While such a calculation might be technically correct in terms of harm vs. good, it is extralegal and wrong to do the things the computer did, and I think any viewer seeing the movie is meant see it that way.
We don't commit coup d'etats in this country (hopefully), we elect our officials according to the law. The computer tries to override the vote, the will of the people, and that should be perceived as wrong. If you missed that point, you didn't understand the movie.
_________________
Brude
reply
share
Flanged
14 years ago
Well said.
.
reply
share
HugsFromLV426
14 years ago
The movie didn't preach its political bias non-stop, but it was definitely there. Most clearly in the opinion that by acting against terrorists we are actually causing terrorism. People seem to forget that 9/11 happened before the war on terror. Bush was in office for less than a year when the attacks occurred and had not engaged in any mideast adventures. The attack was planned, and other attacks were carried out against Americans by Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration.
reply
share
hanfuzzy
14 years ago
(spoilers)
That's right, history began with 9/11 and America had never done anything prior to that which might have angered unstable people (like Al Qaeda) in other countries.
There's no bias in this movie, military experts from around the world (including at the Pentagon) have said over and over that killing civilians leads to increased backlash and can actually worsen the situation. And of course mis-identifying a target and killing innocent civilians can hardly be called "acting against terrorists".
It's just one example of many where the attempt to solve a problem can end up making the problem worse. ("War on Drugs" is one that comes to mind; "tough on crime" perhaps another). That's not any kind of political bias, because smart people of all political stripes know this is true, although they may address it differently or apply it in different situations. During the Bush admin, the "left" (although not the elected Dems) pointed out that ham-handed military interventions were as likely to create more terrorism as to reduce it. Meanwhile, the "right" likes to assert that welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty can instead perpetuate or even encourage it. It's the same principle.
The purpose of a film like this isn't to make a statement that something is "good" or "bad", but to remind us that actions and consequences are complex so we should think about them more deeply and be more careful instead of assuming everyting is simple, like "American only responded to 9/11". If anything, the message is inconclusive, because the President who made the mistake and is now trying to rationalize/justify it rather than apologize or make amends is spared any real consequences, while the misguided AI which tried to hold him to account is destroyed. For the President, the ends justified the means, but the AI that worked on the same logic was punished.
reply
share
HugsFromLV426
13 years ago
True, history did not start with 9-11. But this movie seemed to be clearly referring to the "war on terror" which did not begin until after 9-11.
And yes, America has done things to anger unstable people, but then again, couldn't ANY action anger unstable people? Maybe things like allowing women to vote and drive?
The political points of the movie seemed to be:
1) The president (Bush) is a huge dumbass. (Maybe, but not to the extent that Hollywood likes to think)
2) If we were just nicer to the rest of the world the terrorists would leave us alone. (Never going to happen)
reply
share
daimposter
13 years ago
The war on modern day terror began in 1972 when terrorist kidnapped and killed the Israeli Olympic team. Then came the kidnappings in Iran, the bombing of Marine barricade in Beirut in the early 80's, the '93 world trade center bomb, the late 90's attack on a military ship near Yemen and the two American embassies in Africa. The "war on terror" was just a name given by Bush to expand its efforts.
1. Bush is a dumbass but maybe not as much as hollywood thinks. His major fault is he's a trigger happy war-causing president.
2. If we were nicer to the rest of the world, terrorist would attack us LESS. We are never going to be fully safe from them but it shouldn't be hard to understand that the more we meddle in middle eastern affairs the more we become targets. Why is mostly the US and Western European who are attacked by Muslim terrorist and not Latin American countries, Eastern Europeans, Japan, etc. That's because NATO (US & Europe) is the one with troops in the middle east. I'm not saying we should remove the troops but to deny that there would be a decrease of terrorism against the US if we 'we were nicer' is just dumb.
reply
share
imdb-15906
12 years ago
Or in 1920, when the Haganah was formed; or in 1931 with the Zionist Irgun; or in 1946, with the King David Hotel bombing; 1947, the breakdown in the UN Plan of Partition; 1948, formation of the State of Israel, immediately recognized by the US; the Palestinian Naqba; 1953, the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran; 1982, the occupation of Lebanon by Israel.
If you like, you can go back to the Crusades, but the primary complaints Osama bin Laden leveled against the US were support of Israel against the Palestinians and the presence of US military bases in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) after the Gulf War, as well as general US meddling in the Middle East.
reply
share
Soodinum
11 years ago
For God's sake learn some history. America didn't get it's billing as The World's Leading Terrorist Nation (Chomsky) BEFORE 9/11 for nothing.
If you're reading this, then you're sitting in front of a computer. Start looking up the actions around the world of the US before 9/11.
'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.
reply
share
ajk718
13 years ago
of course i agree that what the computer did was awful and wrong, but it did bring up an interesting thing that has also become awful and wrong on this country (in my opinion, as a constitutional conservative/libertarian)....the executive branch has gotten way too large and the Congress has been losing power to the executive branch for years.....yet no one seems to care, especially when you have one party in control of the executive and legislature....all they care about is that the President is of there own political party so they can get there agenda passed.....the Constitution has been used as part of political tug of war instead of what it is supposed to be--- the framework of how our federal government is supposed to work in relationship to the states.....the only time something is considered "unconstitutional" is if someone from the other party is committing the act...the constitution is only okay with these politicians if it fits there political game.....any president (Republican or Democrat) should that overreaches and does not respect this document or passes amendments to it in the proper way should be impeached (not killed as the computer had done)...
reply
share
imdb-15906
12 years ago
"... the executive branch has gotten way too large and the Congress has been losing power to the executive branch for years ..." Indeed. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but the US hasn't fought a declared war since World War II: everything is military advisers and police actions and weasel-worded resolutions like an "Authorization to Use Military Force". Because everyone in Congress is afraid if they showed enough spine to declare war, they'd get voted out of office. So both parties collaborate to draw the boundaries of Congressional districts so that 98% of incumbents get re-elected.
"... all they care about is that the President is of there own political party so they can get there agenda passed ..." That's a factor, but I think it's more of a team sport between the Democrats and Republicans, where the only thing that matters is which team wins.
reply
share
ixtrm-sol
10 years ago
but when the government is corrupt and inept to the core, elections serve little purpose than putting more corrupt politicians in power, at that point an armed rebellion is probably the only thing that'll effectively change the system. the constitution even has a built in clause to support that, what do you think the 2nd amendment was for. sure armed rebellion is 'illegal' so was fighting britain for independence. the only problem i have is letting a computer decide when 'the people' will stand it no more, that like you said is extralegal and usurping the will of the actual people. otherwise if half+ or 2/3+ of people think we should overthrow the government by force then it's automatically 'legal' anyway because it represented the will of the majority of the people, i say rebel away. wait what's that loud noise, oh *beep* a f&king dro -=SIGNAL LOST=-
reply
share