MovieChat Forums > Aloha (2015) Discussion > An Air Force pilot who is really a hippi...

An Air Force pilot who is really a hippie and hates weapons?


Well at least I guess I can see why Hillary Clinton would like Captain Ng. That line was more true than the liberal filmmakers intended. Her character came across as very unlikable because she seemed unpatriotic and didn't seem to understand how the real world works. I understand they should have been honest with the Native Hawaiians, but other than that, putting weapons into space before the Chinese and Russians do is a good thing.

Why would a fighter pilot be against weapons deployed in space that would give the US a strategic edge over our enemies? And so these covert operations are inherently bad? The CIA and military mask things all the time. If her character had been a hippie or something it might have made more sense.

If we can destroy an enemy target from space, that means less risky missions where American pilots lives are at stake. There's absolutely nothing with drone warfare (on foreign soil) and satellite weapons, missile defense etc. In real life, Alec Baldwin is an extreme liberal even by Hollywood standards. I like Bradley Cooper much more in American Sniper.

reply

She doesn't hate weapons, she hates the terrible precedent that privately owned nuclear arms would be. She hates the misleading of the public as to the actual purpose of the satellite, given that they are indirectly threatened by its existence. She hates the betrayal of the agreement between the contractors and the native people.

This does not mean she hates weapons qua weapons.

The same theme is displayed in the movie "Real Genius" where moreso than weaponization itself, the opposition comes from being mislead and having trust abused.

The underlying idea is that people can decide for themselves what is best for them.
That real defense of the country, if necessary, would not have to come by force or fraud or misleading others. It is the same argument against a military draft: if you have to use force to compel people to fight/be protected, what would they really fighting in the name of? The freedom that they have been deprived of? In which case what is the difference between China/Russia and the United States? Again, dangerous precedents.

If the cause is truly just, there will be no shortage of volunteers. No shortage of support for the need for whatever tech defense, assuming it is financially feasible. Anytime the public must be misled, it implies that there is evil being committed by the home team.

reply

Having weapons and especially nukes in space will BREAK the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which currently 104 nations are a part of including all major nuclear powers. Including the 5 that have permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. A Treaty the U.S., U.K., and Soviet Union who are the first signatories.

Having a private contractor or the CIA in control of nukes or any other powerful weapons is an exceptionally terrible precedent. No agencies other than the military should be in control of such weapon systems.

And boy you really don't think things out about legal procedures and consequence do you? Or that anything that doesn't fit your agenda are considered liberals. Most sane active and retired Generals would probably give you an ass chewing for your silly notions.

reply

They didn't know it was nukes until the very end. Plus the contractor could have had a secret agreement with people in the Pentagon way above her pay grade. This movie's politics just reeked of anti-war, anti-military liberalism which is so typical of Hollywood.

Military contractors, CIA agents etc are always the bad guys now as opposed to....real threats like Islamic terrorists, Mexican drug cartels, North Koreans, Russians, communists, etc.

reply

Yeah, there are no movies that have Russians, Mexicans or China as villains! None!

reply

OP is a *beep* brainwashed idiot, my god!

reply