As an American, I can say that:
America does what it wants. If there is a chance that America will be harmed by terrorist (I know terrorist typically is a viewpoint, much like how Britain viewed the colonials during 'our' revolutionary war) or any other militaristic faction, we will take care of it if we know about it. If that means crossing the line, acting without U.N. approval or trampling all over a non-American government (and by that I obviously mean U.S.A., considering more than a few countries fall under the term 'American') to do it, we will. We send airstrikes and all sorts of other nasties in to countries we are not formally at war with, and if it's deemed necessary, America will do it. Pakistan comes to mind. The whole Middle-East as a matter of fact. Innocent people die in these strikes, primarily (and please take my words for what they are, the word 'primarily' meaning usually or as a general term) because anti-American militants tend to hide themselves amongst the civilian populous on purpose so as to make a bad image for us (and killing civilians is a terrible thing, don't get me wrong).
On your second point, there's no doubt that a spy of any nation spying on another is illegal in that country. I can't think of an instance where it would be legal to spy in another country. Here's a newsflash for you: America does what it wants. If our military so deems it, a spy can (and should, and I speak from the perspective of any country committing espionage) be rescued. I think it's highly unlikely the U.S. (or any country) would risk highly trained combatants to rescue a 'simple' spy, but perhaps that spy has knowledge of 'terrorist' activities. Perhaps that spy has any relevant knowledge to their country of origin. You think that country of origin will let an asset go? Be it the U.S. or not, they will risk an incident to gain that information. That's why those spies are out there in the first place. Like I said, I think it's unlikely to send a team in for one spy, but refer back to the first. America will do what it wants.
See, I don't think the world understands Americans. We are a violent society, raised to be extremely patriotic in some cases. We do not like 9/11's happening. We do not like being attacked, I would guess much like your country of origin (if it's the U.S. you didn't really specify so I apologize). We see (and, again, please understand that when I mean 'we' I'm not talking of everyone, we in this case are like-minded people of myself) our own national security as priority number uno. WE WILL BREAK INTERNATIONAL LAWS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS. Key phrase, IN OUR BEST INTERESTS.
Please, also realize that support for the military and foreign wars is quite limited in this country, and often is a regional attitude.
On your third point, please refer to points one and two. America will do as it pleases. In the interests of national security, in the case of a known and confirmed associate of 'terror' we will most certainly board your boat in international waters, assuming you fit the criteria. At that point in the film, there was ample cause to commit piracy as you see it. The U.N. doesn't act quick enough for immediate danger against a sovereign nation. Look at a lot of nations in turmoil right now, and think of how the U.N. has handled their cases. Besides, the U.N. is really only good for issuing mean letters to countries (my personal opinion). In context of the film, the boat owner was a terror suspect involved in an imminent threat. If it means breaking the laws and straining international relations, America will do it to serve our best interests. I honestly expect nothing less of any country in the world, even if the actions are against the United States. Every country has the right to protect themselves, and given the context of the film, under my stipulations, the U.S. was within their rights (whether it's legal or not). If the U.S. threatened Iran, for example, Iran should be prepared to take any actions they see fit against us. That's the way of the world.
Say a man was going to shoot my family, and I'm, oh let's say French. Do I postpone immediate action, knowing full well my family will die, while I go get written permission from my governing body to act on the threat? Or do I kick his ass? See my point?
If you don't, that's O.K. You wanted a reasonable argument and I gave you one. Take it or leave it. Say what you will, it won't matter. This film, though an advertisement tool for the U.S. military, will only attract those already thinking of joining the armed forces or those on the fence. It will do little to recruit those with solid opinions against the armed forces. That's not its goal. The film was made to glorify those AMERICANS who have died to keep our country safe. We are (some of us) proud of that. Silly, tear-jerking moments like jumping on a grenade are real, and people in ALL countries lose loved ones in combat.
My message is: be proud of the men and women serving YOU. I'm proud of my combatants, doing something that I was unwilling to do to ensure my freedom of typing this little rant. There are plenty of people in this world without this simple little right to a public opinion. I'm proud of them. I hope you're proud of your armed forces, too. They protect you, whether you're American or not. They die (sometimes) for you. I never asked them to, but they do. That hits home for me. I don't know what will for you, only you know that.
"You keep calling me Walter. I don't like you," -Rorschach
reply
share
tschapka
12 years ago
No one will argue that a country must act against its own best interest for the benefit of other countries. It's also a safe bet that no country in history had ever acted against its own best interest, knowingly and INTENTIONALLY, including those that were doomed by making what turned out to be ruinous policy choices.
The real question is, is it in our own long term best interest to behave as we do today, just because we can?
In your example of a man getting ready to shoot your family (per your belief), is it really in YOUR best interest for you to go charging into his house to "kick his ass" before anything could happen to you? What if your intel was faulty (you know this happens all the time, right)? How would you explain this to the cops and the judge? How would you explain this to the victim's wife and kids if you killed him in a struggle? What will happen to your own family if you were convicted and sent to jail for decades, or fined millions? If you can invade anyone's home and kick their ass based on your own assessment of the threat situation alone, what's there to keep someone else from doing the exact same thing to you? If the man you were about to attack had shot you dead as you charged into his house, would his action be justified? What kind of society would we be living in if EVERYONE operated this way? Isn't the prevention of vigilantism and all the problems it entails precisely why civilizations had invented the legal system and created the law enforcement profession in the first place?
Why should a people collectively (a tribe, a country) doing exactly the same thing to another, based on the same rationale, be immune from essentially the same repercussions that an individual is liable to suffer as a consequence of these actions?
Yes, we are alone at the top of the global pecking order at the moment - no one can do to us what we have been doing to others; but is it wise to base our policies and actions on the assumption that we will stay at the top of the heap forever? Is there a precedent of this approach working for any entity before us?
We seem to treat 2001 as Year Zero these days, choosing to ignore everything that came before, glossing over the fact that 9/11 was rooted in something other than the absurd notion of "hatred of our freedom", all the while using it to justify every life we take and every bomb we drop half way across the world to this day. Do all of these people we kill and maim ("baddies" or otherwise, 99.99% of whom had no connection whatsoever with 9/11) have no friends or families? What do you suppose the survivors would want to do to us once they've buried their dead? Do you think they'll give us a free pass because we are just "acting in our own best interest"? They will forgive and forget the whole invasion and occupation thing because we are only "defending our freedoms" by killing their loved ones in their own towns and villages whenever we see fit?
In movies, the dead enemy (or bystander) is forgotten once the camera pans away from his corpse. In real life, such deaths mark the beginning of a chain event that may very well come back to haunt the victor years or decades later, especially when the killing is seen as unjust.
Three thousand deaths on 9/11 gave us enough reason and resolve to wage a decade of war that killed perhaps hundreds of thousands in a couple of sparsely populated countries. Do we expect these deaths to weigh any less on these peoples than our losses had weighed on us?
Is it really in our long term best interest to keep chopping off the Hydra's head while insisting on occupying and attempting to drain the Lernean swamp?
We are not the only free people in the world, but somehow "defending our freedoms" requires more killing of foreigners around the world than others do to protect theirs. Why is that?
Soldiers don't start wars, politicians do. Politicians don't invade foreign countries to protect our freedom to wax BS on IMDb (or anywhere else for that matter, because foreigners generally like our culture and don't really give a crap what we say and do in our own country). These days, no country ever attacks another that it doesn't believe (sometimes erroneously) it can easily crush. A priori, there is nothing glorious or courageous about starting wars when your own life is not on the line. Sticking a fatuous "for the defense of freedom" label on a war doesn't make it so.
It's perfectly fine to celebrate bravery and self-sacrifice, and wars do in fact bring these qualities out of certain fighters in abundance; but the danger of carrying the warrior worship thing too far is that we begin to identify the heroics of our soldiers with the wars they are ordered to fight, and confuse admiration for the fighters with approval of (and even justification for) the fight. The sort of hyper-patriotism this engenders can distort our collective perception, and give unscrupulous people an opportunity to manipulate us into carrying out (or supporting) policies that are ultimately NOT in our own best interest. God knows there are more than enough examples of what this road can lead to in all the history books.
In "Schindler's List", Oskar told Amon Goeth that the definition of "Power" is "when we have every justification to kill, and we don't". He was messing with Goeth's head, but there is nevertheless a lot of truth in this line. It is as relevant today as it was then, even though the circumstances are vastly different.
As for the movie itself, it's fine for the visuals, and the film-makers were wise to keep the storyline relatively light and apolitical. In terms of realism, it's a quantum leap from the Stallone and Schwarzeneggerian fantasies of the past, but it's still obviously more glossy fiction than raw docudrama. What I find most curious though is the fact that uber-hawks like Pam Geller had actually panned the whole movie over just a single tiny (and somewhat unnecessary) plot twist. I really don't see what the big deal was, but I guess in a movie like this, where the "baddies" came in any and all sizes and flavors, there is room for personal interpretation of the film maker's "true" intent, if one is so inclined...
reply
share
Epsilon_Pegasi
12 years ago
Love the analogy of the Hydra. It's true no matter how many heads we chop off they will keep coming back. My view on the Afghan war was it was justified, my view on the Iraq war was it was not justified. But now we've gotten ourselves in to an awkward situation with the whole thing.
This whole business of modern day terror really goes all the way back to the 70s when America thought it was smart to shift political power in the Middle-East (there's always been conflict in the Middle-East, and a good part of regional violence is in no small part due to Israel being established in, was it '47?) We made these terrorists, no matter how you spin it. We meddled and we played our games, especially during the 80s and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They have blamed us for unjustified murder and meddling since before I was born, and I understand their hate in most cases.
Now I can empathize, but America is my home, and the Taliban and various other terror organizations attacked my home. We are in this endless loop of they did this, so we will do this. That's our little awkward situation, really a catch-22. They won't stop until we leave their region alone (if they'll stop at all) and we won't stop until we're assured terrorists won't attack us. It's really a *beep* situation for everyone.
I didn't write what I did cause I think it's right, but I don't like people who look down on our (your) armed forces. Like you said, politicians start wars. It's O.K. to spit on soldiers for doing their job, but we keep re-electing the politicians who are really to blame. Bush started the wars, that's fair enough and factual. He was re-elected, though it has been proven time and time again that Americans don't like change in time of conflict. F.D.R. comes to mind. He wasn't the only one to make a mess of things, though. Mismanagement of the Middle-East has been a trend since the 70s. We want cheap energy, so it's O.K. for us to do whatever we want, right?
I also wrote my little rant to prove to the OP that things like the events depicted in the movie do happen. America doesn't wait. The act first and ask questions later. It isn't unreasonable to save a CIA agent with information. It's not unreasonable to attack a boat in international waters, given we do much worse than that for small-timers who throw suicide vests on people. The point is Americans do this regularly. This is a movie not a documentary, so everything is dramatized (heavily). Real combat is much quicker and really sort of anti-climactic unlike fight scenes in movies (in general).
My post was meant to be more matter of fact. We are America, arguably the most influential country in the world. We have a strong military, and we play a key role in global economics. Whether it's right or wrong, we do what we please and only give superficial apologies for our actions. Still, though, support your troops. They do what they're told and they're looked down upon for it. I think it's sad.
"You keep calling me Walter. I don't like you," -Rorschach
reply
share
franmiranda
12 years ago
@tschapka
Didnt expect to read something so brilliant in the IMDB forums.
Agree 100% and couldnt say it myself better (mostly because im not native english)
You, sir, have my salute
reply
share
chet-bhag
12 years ago
I can only hope that you never contest or get elected for any public office.
Your views are dangerously similar to what Mr. Adolf Hitler must have had in his youth and on which he built later on with help of like minded entities.
Please try and concentrate on the beautiful lines at the end of the movie.
reply
share
Epsilon_Pegasi
12 years ago
Could you elaborate on how I sound like that lunatic, citing specifics of what I wrote and argue your case? If you can I will be surprised but I will accept them. Thanks :)
reply
share
Jay_Kay_71
12 years ago
You put together a reasoned and coherent response, but this given, don't then be surprised if other nationalities find America to be repulsive on the grounds of it's foreign policy.
I'm English and we've had to put up with it for centuries..
reply
share
Epsilon_Pegasi
12 years ago
The world put up with English foreign policy a few centuries before the world dealt with ours. Also the French, Belgian, German, Japan, etc. I would wager in a few hundred years there would be a new kid on the block. And I don't care if you disagree with anything I said because I respect any opinion, whether I agree or not. I want the person who compared me to Hither explain themselves because I don't see the correlation. If they could elaborate on what they meant maybe I would understand better where they're coming from.
reply
share
blackhawk5150
9 years ago
"You put together a reasoned and coherent response, but this given, don't then be surprised if other nationalities find America to be repulsive on the grounds of it's foreign policy.
I'm English and we've had to put up with it for centuries.."
Oh wow. That's rich coming from a Brit. Ever heard the phrase, "The sun never sets on the British Empire"? I wonder if all the countries they "colonized" for their empire found British foreign policy repulsive.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a Brit hater by any means, in fact, I'm incredibly impressed by your country, as I am by my own. My point is that your attitude is simply the pot calling the kettle black. I hope that's obvious to you.
reply
share
rbane3
9 years ago
It's perfectly fine to celebrate bravery and self-sacrifice, and wars do in fact bring these qualities out of certain fighters in abundance; but the danger of carrying the warrior worship thing too far is that we begin to identify the heroics of our soldiers with the wars they are ordered to fight, and confuse admiration for the fighters with approval of (and even justification for) the fight. The sort of hyper-patriotism this engenders can distort our collective perception, and give unscrupulous people an opportunity to manipulate us into carrying out (or supporting) policies that are ultimately NOT in our own best interest. God knows there are more than enough examples of what this road can lead to in all the history books.
As a former American Soldier, a patriot, and a realist.. I applaud your clear and reasoned statement. I can't state enough how very much I agree with what you've written here, and elsewhere in your post. Thank you!
That being said, this kind of levelheadedness is not tolerated on IMDBs forums and you must be publicly berated along with a report to the moderators. Please restrain your logic in the future, sir. ;)
reply
share
geodacius
9 years ago
It is good to see a realist speak his opinion quite fluently on imdb for once.
Cheers to you sir.
reply
share
night_crawler_01
9 years ago
That North America can do it, doesn't make it right. I bet the nazis were thinking the same thing when they invaded all their unprepared neighbors. We do what we want. We do it because we can. And they were convinced, brain washed actually, like you must have been, that it was in their best interest. Your grandparents who fought WWII precisely for this, must be writhing in their graves knowing that north americans became what they fought and died against.
reply
share