Today, We Celebrate… Our Independence Day!
My first real experience with true Summer Blockbuster hype that I can really remember was Independence Day (or ID4 as some of the promotional materials touted it as). I was 20 years old and walked into the flashy new theater at the Mall of America (which is now a completely crap theater) around 4:30 in the afternoon, only to find out that ID4 was sold out for every screening until 10:50 that evening. “Holy shit” I thought. I’ve never seen this before. I convinced my girlfriend at the time to hang out at the mall all day until our screening at 10:50 that night. Reluctantly she agreed. And I’m so glad she did. It was the most memorable and maybe the best theater experience I’ve ever had in my life. And probably why I saw the movie in the theater at least 5 times back in late ‘96.
Now, does ID4 have some holes and get a little cheesy here and there? Most certainly. Is some of the dialogue a little corny? Yeah. But the rest of the film is so enjoyable and successful and cool and fun and exciting that these very minor problems are so easy to overlook. Instead of the typical review, I’ll assume everyone’s seen the movie and present a list of reasons why I love ID4 so much (currently at #53 on my list of favorite movies of all time) and why I had such a great experience.
- The opening shot is a great. Sure it’s reminiscent of the opening shot of Star Wars, but that may be exactly why I like it. The ship looks awesome and instead of open space, we see the shadow of this monstrosity slowly devour the moon. A landscape that is recognizable and close to home - as opposed to open space or Tatooine. Doom impending. The theater seats rumble. Great opening shot. “For all mankind.”
- “…just a little anxious to get up there and whoop E.T.’s ass sir.” Will Smith. This was a big step in Will Smith’s career. This is the movie that solidified him as a summer hero for years to come (including this year, 2008). Funny, charming, courageous, skillful, cool and badass. Between Maverick or Capt. Hiller as my wingman, I’ll take Hiller any day of the week (though to be fair, I like Goose better than Harry Connick Jr). Punching the alien in the face was funny and unexpected. I remember the theater being fairly quiet right after it happened save for one probably 5 year-old kid who burst out laughing. The theater got quite a kick out of that.
- Bill Pullman. At the time, I only really knew him from While You Were Sleeping. When people mention great on-screen Presidents, Pullman is usually the first or second that springs to mind.
- The Speech:
- Jeff Fucking Goldblum. Love love LOVE him here. Every line spoken is Goldblum on Goldblum. I need to say no more on that.
- The attack. We all sat dumbfounded as the country literally goes up in flames. The anticipation of what was going to happen when that clock reached zero was exciting and the narrow escape by Air Force One was nail biting. Explosions, the gay guy’s simple resignation that his life is over, “oh crap,” and the flames sweeping through the city streets. Which leads me to…
- Probably my favorite scene of the entire movie. Boomer the dog leaping from car to car with a huge smile on his face and that big tongue lazily lolling out of his mouth as he leaps into the service corridor (in slow motion I might add) narrowly escaping the giant fireball. The most implausibe thing ever? So what!? The crowd on that Friday night went berzerk with applause. It was great. Still is.
- The patriotism. Ok, so some of you are turned off by the ra-ra America thing. Two words for that: tough shit. It’s the United States’ Independence Day. Nothing wrong in my mind with showing pride and ass-kickery from the strongest nation on the planet. Besides the notorious shots of the White House and Empire State Building exploding, I love the shot the next day of NYC in ruins and the statue of liberty lying face down in the water (that takes on a new meaning today, but in 1996 it meant something a little different - more fictional. We were angry in a good way). While V for Vendetta did it the wrong way and only angered me to see important landmarks blown up for the wrong reasons (i.e. promoting terrorism), ID4 did it effectively and for the right reasons. It brought the people together and made us hunger for vengeance and victory.
- Yeah, the July 3 counter attack and ensuing battle is super cool. Love the shot of hundreds of F-15s taking to the sky and all firing their sidewinders at the same time. It’s just awe-inspiring to look at. The camera pulls back a couple of times for a perspective on how tiny and insignificant the fighters are against this gigantic machine.
- All of the great character actors doing their thing. James Rebhorn as Mr. Nimzicki is devilishly snake-like. Although on our side, a real asshole that really helped to tie the room together. “Ah Mr. President? That not… entirely… accurate…”. Also Robert Loggia delivering the cliche lines a movie General is supposed to utter. Randy Quaid in a humorous role. Judd Hirsch Injecting some humor. Mary McDonnell before she was President of the Colonies serves a dramatic purpose: “Is mommy sleeping now?” “Yeah. Mommy’s sleeping.” C’mon, no emotional response pushing at your throat on that one?
- Brent Spiner as Dr. Okun (did you know his first name is Brackish? Cool). A nice unexpected cameo in which every dude in the theater simultaneously leaned over to his girlfriend and whispered, “ya know the robot guy that you kind of like in the Star Trek show I watch? That’s him!” He was humorous and disguised well. A nice touch having Data running Area 51.
- The effects. And not just the city and buildings exploding. The look of the ships, how they move, the smaller attack sequences and battles. At the time, it was beyond amazing how great everything looked. And to be honest, it still holds up really well today.
So yeah, all of the pieces of this puzzle fit really nicely into place. It’s easy to pick apart a lot of little things about this movie, but once you begin to do that, the whole thing becomes pointless. For what it is, the film is highly entertaining and exciting and despite having many multiple characters and story arcs, it flows really nicely. We get a good feel of who each character is and what motivated them. It’s not the deepest character study ever, but compare any character in ID4 to any character in Transformers. 10 out of 10 times the character in ID4 will be deeper, more interesting, funnier and serves an important purpose.
This movie is basically taking the idea of the 80’s television mini-series, V (which I love), and putting back in all of the exciting bits.
Unfortunately the creative team behind this movie (Devlin/Emmerich) hasn’t put together anything nearly as entertaining or fun since. That is my only regret.
Forget the fireworks tonight. Sit down in front of your Hi-def and watch Independence Day one more time.
I haven’t seen ID4 in years. Personally, I’d rather sit down with “Last Night” but I’ll admit, you make some good points in it’s defense.
Comment by Marina Antunes — July 4, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
ID4 is easily in my top 5 all-time most hated movies.
I’d call it fascism for wannabe fascists but Kurt already stole my thunder.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 4, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
What is this new trend of accusing every other movie of “fascism”? I thought Wanted was guilty of having an amoral message but I’m not sure about fascism.
I called Rot a fascist once. I forget what brought that on.
Comment by Rusty James — July 4, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Although I wouldn’t give it a perfect score, I am in support of all of your points. Roland Emmerich movies are quite a bit of stupid fun.
Comment by Jay C. — July 4, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
If I wasn’t at Fantasia and having to run off to take in 4 films today, I’d write a counter-to this. I hate this movie!!
Comment by kurt — July 5, 2008 @ 8:37 am
“When people mention great on-screen Presidents, Pullman is usually the first or second that springs to mind.”
What?
Comment by Henrik — July 6, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
“I called Rot a fascist once. I forget what brought that on.”
ignorance.
Comment by rot — July 6, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
@Henrik,
Right after Peter Sellers in Dr Strangelove.
But I do like me some Jack in Mars Attacks and of course Harrison Ford kicking terrorism in the ass.
Comment by Andrew James — July 6, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Ooh. After looking over a couple of online lists, realized I forgot to mention Bruce Greenwood in Thirteen Days. Although I’m not sure if that counts as he is portraying an already existing president. As far as fictional goes, yeah, I liked Bill Pullman in the role…
“Let’s nuke ‘em. Let’s nuke the bastards.”
Comment by Andrew James — July 6, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Is this the one where the President asks for a shark sandwich? If so, it’s the only redeeming quality of the film. Otherwise it has none
Comment by Shannon the Movie Moxie — July 6, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
A) No it’s not that one.
B) That’s Jeff Bridges in The Contender
C) I forgot about that one - definitely in my top three.
D) That movie was fabulous.
Comment by Andrew James — July 6, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
Oh my good memory Andrew!
I actually didn’t like the film (in terms of the message) but Jeff Bridges was awesome, as was the every wonderful Joan Allen.
Comment by Shannon the Movie Moxie — July 6, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
I’m sorry Andrew, I read it as though you meant in general, not just for you personally.
I do think that ID4 is pretty awesome, and funny. Just more proof to back up the theory that all the good hollywood movies are directed by europeans. Boo-Ya.
Comment by Henrik — July 7, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
“While V for Vendetta did it the wrong way and only angered me to see important landmarks blown up for the wrong reasons (i.e. promoting terrorism), ID4 did it effectively and for the right reasons.”
I have to say though, that this little piece of opinion is so ignorant and misguided that it leaves me cold towards you as a human being. I guess when it comes to terrorism, we can’t have any attempt to treat it seriously. I didn’t like V for Vendetta much at all, but if you seriously think that ID4 has a better understanding of blowing up america than V for Vendetta, you need your fucking head examined. By a gun.
Comment by Henrik — July 7, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
What?
Comment by Andrew James — July 8, 2008 @ 8:15 am
If you were joking or even tongue-in-cheek, i apologize for the harsh treatment. If you were being serious, I stand by my sentiments.
Comment by Henrik — July 8, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Well, you put words in my mouth, but other than that, yes I am serious. First of all, V for Vendetta blows up the UK - not America. Secondly, ID4 blows up buildings and kills people in a fun way by Aliens who just make the audience want to fight back and kick some ass. Vendetta does it as a message that, and I quote, “..blowing up a building can change the world.” So while ID4 does it as an attack and audience sympathy device, Vendetta blows up buildings and people in a celebratory way - i.e. to get soemthing done - i.e. it’s a good thing - i.e. terrorism. This is something I’m not on board with. I think there are other ways to change the world than celebrating destruction of hundred year old landmarks with innocent people inside. That’s just me though.
Lastly, “By a gun.” I rest my case.
Comment by Andrew James — July 8, 2008 @ 8:30 am
But ID4 is so shameless in wanting its audience to like it and be on board with it. It is so pathetic and simple. Yet so earnest and stupid. I can’t get on board with it.
Godzilla and Stargate (the ID4 book ends) confirm this. And I’ve more or less avoided Emmerich/Devlin ever since.
Comment by Kurt — July 8, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Don’t get me wrong, other than ID4, I hate Emmerich films. Godzilla and Day/Tomorrow were horrible. Didn’t care a whole helluva lot for 10,000 BC either.
Comment by Andrew James — July 8, 2008 @ 9:39 am
I hardly think terrorism is celebrated in V for Vendetta, but it’s important to understand why terrorism occurs. Not just act like it’s the bad guys. You have to realize this.
The ‘By a gun’ was my attempt at biting sarcasm.
Comment by Henrik — July 8, 2008 @ 9:40 am
I hardly think terrorism is celebrated in V for Vendetta, but it’s important to understand why terrorism occurs. Not just act like it’s the bad guys. You have to realize this.
I’m with Henrik on this one. While Terrorism was a key component of V FOR VENDETTA, the basic premise was society rising up against a tyrannical government. In this case, the ones on the receiving end of the terrorism were the ‘bad’ guys.
As for ID4, I am a fan. I always have fun watching that movie!
Comment by Dave — July 8, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Yeah, I never heard anybody complain that Braveheart celebrated terrorism. Perhaps the reluctance of Alan Moore (and to a lesser degree the hack director) to portray the government as the most horrible, sadistic people in existence is what turns people off. I think he’d say mission accomplished.
Comment by Henrik — July 9, 2008 @ 6:42 am
On V for Vendetta: I thought the way the film tried to say what it wanted to say was facile. The pacing was off in the movie. There were certainly things to appreciate in V, but it was hard to love. Great poster though.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 9, 2008 @ 7:13 am
I agree with you Kurt. I didn’t like the movie very much, but I wasn’t the biggest fan of the comic book either. Even Alan Moore dislikes it, admitting that it is childish - but the movie takes it to another level.
Comment by Henrik — July 9, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Yea, it was a disappointment, but still far from the worst comic book adaptation out there. Very far.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 9, 2008 @ 7:34 am
I never knew much about it before I saw it and I have to say I really, REALLY liked it (in fact yeah I’d go as far to say LOVED). For Hugo Weaving’s performance alone…
Comment by Ross Miller — July 9, 2008 @ 8:37 am
I think I had the wool pulled over my eyes the first time because I really liked it. The second time I realized it’s kind of petty and disjointed.
I don’t see the terrorism link in Braveheart. Wallace got the people to rise up and fight against the gov’t. V does the same thing, which is fine, but in the process thinks blowing up Parliament and other national landmarks is a good thing. In a post-911 world I think telling people that blowing up buildings is good, is pretty irresponsible story telling.
Natalie Portman is great in this though. She’s quickly becoming one of my favorites. She really is great in almost everything she’s in.
Comment by Andrew James — July 9, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Natalie Portman is great in this though. She’s quickly becoming one of my favorites. She really is great in almost everything she’s in.
I was thinking about Portman just the other day, and the only really poor performances she’s given were the Star Wars films (and let’s face it, she was NOT alone).
In COLD MOUNTAIN, she had a brief role as a southern wife all alone, and she was incredibly strong. In my opinion, she was better than Zellweger, who won the Oscar for that film.
Comment by Dave — July 9, 2008 @ 10:31 am
As for V FOR VENDETTA, I’m a fan (and I agree with you, Ross…Weaving was a big reason why I enjoyed it).
Comment by Dave — July 9, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Dude, remember thinking Cold Mountain was pretty mediocre; but I remember how great Zellweger was in it. Forgot Portman was in it until you mentioned it. Doesn’t she get raped or something?
Even when she was a little kid - she was one of the best things about Beautiful Girls. Never saw “Where the Heart Is” but I bet she’s good as the pregnant teen stuck at K-Mart. And Garden State was pretty good too.
Speaking of that, why hasn’t Zach Braff directed anything since? That was a quality film for a first time director.
Comment by Andrew James — July 9, 2008 @ 10:53 am
@Andrew “In a post-911 world I think telling people that blowing up buildings is good, is pretty irresponsible story telling.”
The second season of Battlestar Galactica did a fascinating story thread where the ‘good guys’ were the suicide bombers. I thought that was pretty edgy and they did it in a compelling and smart way…
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 9, 2008 @ 11:23 am
I’ve found her (Portman) a bit spotty lately (I didn’t like Garden State too much, and she was definitely the worst part of that film), but she does shine brightly in My Blueberry Nights.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 9, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Agreed on the BG aspect. They do it in a questioning way; giving you something to dwell on and dissect the implications. V tells you it’s a great way to topple governments you don’t like and the fireworks and music present in a way that is joyous and celebratory. I hate that shit.
Comment by Andrew James — July 9, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
“In a post-911 world I think telling people that blowing up buildings is good, is pretty irresponsible story telling.”
Yes, because terrorism was invented on september 11th Mr. American. And Wallace sacks York, raping and murdering innocent people - offscreen of course, you wouldn’t want to put off anybody, so right afterwards we cut to the villain killing a gay guy to re-emphasize that it’s all worth it.
Comment by Henrik — July 9, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Slate.com did a cool article on that series of BSG (if we’re thinking of the same storyline it was actually season 3). The article was sort of sanctimonious but also pretty indepth.
As for V for Vendetta. The movie is too simple minded to have anything to say about terrorism either way. It fails as an action film and as satire and as an Alan Moore adaptation. It’s exactly as serious a statement on terrorism as Star Wars.
Terrorism = good. If it’s against bad people. Where’s the controversy?
The BSG series actually had something to say.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 9, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Please Henrik. You’re acting as if 9/11 was just an American thing that happens all the time and that we shouldn’t look at some films (or anything at all) in a little bit different light since then. The world was changed and so was the way we looked at it. Yes, as an American it probably hits a little closer to home than someone living in the hills of Denmark.
But are you seriously putting forth the argument that Wallace sacking a couple of villages a few hundred years ago is comparable to the modern day terrorism we see in which 3000 people are snuffed out instantaneously and that it affects people the same way today? Particularly in film? If William Wallace is as much of a concern for you or it’s as important to you as the attacks on 9/11, then that’s fine. Just remember most people don’t live in your purple sky world.
Plus, I’m not arguing historical accuracies in film. I’m talking about what we see in films and the messages they deliver. There’s no terrorism message in Braveheart. If it happened in real life, fine. But it didn’t happen in the movie, so I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say. I think maybe you’re honestly just trying to be difficult and push my buttons.
Comment by Andrew James — July 9, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
“The world was changed and so was the way we looked at it.”
Actually, for much of the world things didn’t change at 9/11. Terrorism has happened for decades all over the world. The fact that it happened to America, while decidedly sad, was a surprise to few people in the rest of the world.
“But are you seriously putting forth the argument that Wallace sacking a couple of villages a few hundred years ago is comparable to the modern day terrorism we see in which 3000 people are snuffed out instantaneously and that it affects people the same way today?”
Yes. Maybe you could clear up for me how many people have to die in order for it to be terrorism? While I’m shady on the facts of what historical basis there is for Braveheart, I think it’s safe to assume that more than 3000 innocent people were killed. As for how it affects people, I don’t understand the relevance. It’s terrorism, wether alot of people know about it or not.
“There’s no terrorism message in Braveheart.”
Huh? Wallace is a terrorist in Braveheart. What other definition could you possibly use? ‘Freedomfighter’? And FYI, he did sack York in the movie.
If you want a good movie about terrorism, check out The Wind That Shakes The Barley. I’m willing to bet it’s a bit more nuanced and worthwhile than Battlestar Galactica, but of course it doesn’t have as beautiful people, not as flashy explosions.
Lastly, Danmark is an extremely flat country. As for my purple sky world, I don’t understand the term.
Comment by Henrik — July 9, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
I liked it in Red Dawn when they used terrorism to kill the pinko Commies.
WOLVERINES!!!
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 9, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
I don’t know Andrew. You’re sound pretty off base. Denmark is certaintly no stranger to terrorism. And if I’m not mistaken Henrik lives in Copenhagen which is hardly “the hills of denmark.” Certaintly a larger city than Minniapolis.
I’m sure it’s not intentional, but you come off like you’re saying that terrorism doesnt count unless it’s on US soil.
Maybe 9/11/01 is the day you woke up to the realities of terrorism (it was for me) but I don’t think it’s fair to say that’s the same day the world woke up to terrorism. Though I’m sure FOX NEWS had some banner claiming that scrolling across the screen.
@ “There’s no terrorism message in Braveheart. If it happened in real life, fine. But it didn’t happen in the movie, so I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say.”
William Wallace is certiantly a terrorist in the modern vernacular. Imagine for a second if a movie were made about [insert scary arab name of terrorist] in which all his acts of targeting civilians were omitted. Would you say that film didn’t endorse terrorism or that it white washed terrorism?
Also, remember that V for Vendetta explicitly makes the point that V goes out of his way to avoid civilian casualties. I just don’t see the difference between the films depiction of terrorists. And they are both exactly like Star Wars.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 9, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
@ “I liked it in Red Dawn when they used terrorism to kill the pinko Commies.”
That was awesome!
Comment by Russ T. James — July 9, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Or what about in Iron Eagle when they used terrorism to wipe out rogue middle east nations?
Awesome!
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 9, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
The metro area of Copenhagen is smaller then Minneapolis. I don’t think most people realize how big Minneapolis actually is.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 9, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
I certainly don’t mean to insinuate terrorism only matters in the U.S. I just didn’t like the “Mr. American” comment from Henrik - he does that all the time for almost every argument and it gets on my nerves. He makes it sounds like 9/11 doesn’t matter because it happened in the U.S. - so I got a bit snarky (e.g. “hills of Denmark” and “purple skies”).
Anyway, the point here is that I don’t understand how William Wallace is very relevant in terms of modern warfare and terrorism.
Second, I’m talking about messages in a film, not historical happenings; and there is no message in Braveheart regarding terrorism. So I’m talking about this message in “V for Vendetta” and suddenly Braveheart is brought into the discussion which just doesn’t make much sense to me.
And yes, “Wind that Shakes the Barley” is one of the best films of that year. Far better than V or Braveheart in terms of an emotional component or relevance.
Comment by Andrew James — July 9, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
@ “t I don’t understand how William Wallace is very relevant in terms of modern warfare and terrorism.”
I think Henrik’s point was that Braveheart’s depiction of terrorism is similar to V for Vendetta’s. I could be wrong but I don’t think he ever mentioned modern warfare.
I don’t think he said anything about Braveheart have a politically or socially relevent message. Just that it depicted terrorism and I agree with him about that.
@ “I just didn’t like the “Mr. American” comment from Henrik - he does that all the time for almost every argument and it gets on my nerves.”
Yes, Henrik’s a jerk.
@ “The metro area of Copenhagen is smaller then Minneapolis. I don’t think most people realize how big Minneapolis actually is.”
groan.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 9, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
@ “Or what about in Iron Eagle when they used terrorism to wipe out rogue middle east nations?
Awesome!”
Or in Bad Lieutenant when Harvey Keitel masturbates in that girls face until she stops committing terrorism!
Fuck yeah!
Comment by Russ T. James — July 9, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Or how about when Andrew treated Henrik like shit to stop him (Henrik) from terrozing him (Andrew).
Eat shit Danmark!
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 9, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
I said Mr. American because your comment made it sound like 9/11 was the point where terrorism became relevant to the world, and thus made it irresponsible to portray terrorists in a sympathetic light - a stereotypically american way of viewing the world. The onus would be on you to prove to me why 9/11 mattered more than any act of terrorism preceeding it, thus making your claim true. In terms of pushing buttons, you definitely pushed mine.
I brought up Braveheart because it depicts terrorism sympathetically, and nobody raises an eyebrow. Like I said, it’s probably because the villain is so evil, that any means justify the ends. Just to be clear, I think Braveheart is an astonishing film.
I don’t feel like Andrew treated me like shit. And, as somebody once said, an insult from your inferiors is just as flattering as a compliment from your peers ;).
Comment by Henrik — July 9, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
Fair enough Henrik. Maybe we view terrorism in a different light or maybe it’s semantics. I can’t remember any scenes in Braveheart which depicts Wallace “committing” terrorism. Killing soldiers and infantrymen to me is war or revolution. I can’t remember any scene in the movie in which he deliberately kills innocent peasants or civilians for his political views.
In regards to 9/11, I realize there are terrorist attacks all the time, all over the world; but I can’t think of any (in my lifetime anyway) that was as grand or devastating (in SO many ways) as 9/11. I guess that’s what I mean by the world changed. I know that in America, our country became a completely different place on that day. It was the defining moment in most everyone’s life time.
I don’t meant to sound cold or indifferent, but a restaurant that blows up in Israel or something in which a few people die and there’re are thirty injuries or whatever can’t be compared to something as grandiose as the twin towers collapsing or the most powerful military in the world’s “home base” billowing with smoke. I mean the most powerful nation to ever exist literally stopped that day and for several weeks afterwards and in a lot of ways we still haven’t.
Comment by Andrew James — July 9, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Henrik, I have a question.
In the past I’ve known you to describe yourself as a pacifist. So I’m a little confused. It seems like now you are saying that sometimes terrorist techniques are justified. Are you saying that and if so how do you square that with your pacificism?
If you helps you answer the question: I am definitely not a pacifist and I think that often times terrorist techniques are justified.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 9, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
err…
that should read If it helps you answer the question: I am definitely not a pacifist and I think that often times terrorist techniques are justified.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 12:04 am
Wow. Killing loads of innocent people is justified? Care to elaborate? Chinese authorities are taking very careful measures and keeping security tight for the Olympics this summer. If a bomb goes off in the crowd, will that be justifiable to you somehow?
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 8:17 am
I agree with the following quotes from Michael Ignatieff’s controversial book “The Lesser Evil”. Ignatieff for those who may not know him was the once future Prime Minister of Canada until stupidity won out.
“A necessary evil cannot really be an evil at all, since it is a characteristic of evil that it is not necessary but gratuitous” (p. 17)
“In a war on terror, I would argue, the issue is not whether we can avoid evil acts altogether, but whether we can succeed in choosing lesser evils and keep them from becoming greater ones. We should do so, I would argue, by making some starting commitments – to the conservative principle (maintaining the free institutions we have), to the dignity principle (preserving indivudals from gross harms) – and then reasoning out the consequences of various courses of action, anticipating harms and coming to a rational judgment of which course of action is likely to inflict the least damage on the two principles”. (p. 18)
“The question is not whether some restriction of civil liberties can be justified in times of emergency but whether these restrctions are undertaken secretly and arbitrarily or subjected to legislative scrutiny, justified with good reasons to an electorate, and, above all, subjected to full judicial review”. (p. 49)
“one reason why we balance threat and response poorly is that the political costs of underreaction are always going to be higher than the costs of overreaction. Political leaders who fail to take adequate precautions after an initial attack will pay heavily after a second one, while those who pile on additional measures and still fail to deter the next attack may be able to survive by claiming that they did the best they could. Since no one can know in advance what strategy is best calibrated to deter an attack, the political leader who hits hard – with security roudups and preventive detentions – is making a safer bet, in relation to his own political future, than one who adopts the precautionary strategy of ‘first do no harm’. (p. 58)
Comment by rot — July 10, 2008 @ 8:47 am
I know these are Conservative sounding sentiments, pretty much condoning ‘torture’ but really when you consider things it makes sense, politically.
the weird thing is, at least for me, there is no direct paralell between what is right politically and what is right individually. While I am fine with the Sovereign protecting itself this way, I do not think I myself am capable of violence, or at least to the same level that would be required.
Comment by rot — July 10, 2008 @ 8:53 am
Andrew, the revolutionary war was an act of terrorism. So was Hiroshima.
Like I said above (somewhere) terrorism = good if it’s against the right people. It’s not even really a controversial statement.
@ “If a bomb goes off in the crowd, will that be justifiable to you somehow?”
Yes Andrew, I also support arbitrarily killing sports fans. Especially if the the sport in question is totally gay; which the olympics are.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 8:59 am
I seem to remember Andrew being a huge fan of The Strangers, which was all about glorifying terrorism.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 10, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Andrew = terrorist
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 9:34 am
First off, If you’re going to kill someone at the olympics, at least make sure it is the corrupt judges.
2nd - Hiroshima could definitely be considered terrorism on a large scale I suppose. I guess I can agree with that and can also agree that it was likely the best course of action considering the alternative (which is pretty fascinating actually). So I back pedal in that case. But I still don’t think that “often times terrorism is justified.” A better way to say it would maybe be in very rare cases, terrorism is the best alternative - or lesser of two evils.
But I still don’t think, personally, that The Revolutionary war was terrorism. Unless you consider it terrorism on the part of the British - that I may be able to agree upon - but in either way, if there was the purposeful killing of innocents (i.e. women and children) I don’t think it’s justified or right - unless of course the women and children were literally fighting on the battlefield, in which case it’s not terrorism, it’s war.
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Basically Andrew it comes down to this: the line between terrorism and war is iffy at best because all wars slaughter civilians purposely.
It would be convienient if I could bury my head in the sand and say that war is never justified and become a pacifist. But unfortunatly I’m too intelligent for that. Violence is horrible and barbaric and often times the only justifiable course of action. Those who would abstain from it, and keep their hands clean rather than perform the necessary moral calculus are cowards.
@ “A better way to say it would maybe be in very rare cases, terrorism is the best alternative”
Yeah, that would be better. If it were true.
By the way, so there’s no confusion. I’m not at all a supporter of the war in Iraq.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 9:47 am
So I guess it is just semantics then. I consider war to be quite a different beast than terrorism. One is focussed on military targets while attempting to quell a situation and provide for the least amount of civilian casualties while the other is the deliberate killing of civilians.
“all wars slaughter civilians purposely.” I disagree with this statement immensely. All wars do not target civilians on purpose. Sure there is unfortunate collateral damage, but I know several people and am actually close friends with a couple of people who are currently on active duty and I know for a fact that they do not slaughter civilians and am slightly offended that you think they do.
Part of the reason the war is so expensive is because we spend extra money on precision weapons, smart bombs and remote mines and so forth. If we wanted to get it over the cheap way, we could just carpet bomb everything into oblivion - which would be terrorism and totally unjustified; not to mention sick.
PS - I’m just about done with this conversation. I do this in other places. I’d rather talk about Bill Pullman’s great speech in ID4
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 9:59 am
“all wars slaughter civilians purposely.”
not even the civil war was civil.
Highly recommend people see Errol Morris’ recent doc, Standard Operating Procedure for a first-hand account of how the psychological pressures of a war environment almost necessitates insanity and by insanity + weaponry = inevitable collateral damage.
Comment by rot — July 10, 2008 @ 10:07 am
It must be comforting to believe all of that.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 10:07 am
heh heh
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 10:08 am
not to say there are not brave men and women who have the wherewithal to cope and follow orders, but its a level of self-control that must surely be hard to live up to when confronted with the things, say, the soldiers in Abu Girab had to.
its not just enough to say there are orders to be followed and everyone can wash their hands of any of the bad apples or unexpected accidents… the accidents are built into the equation… you are killing innocent people.
That said, politically, and under the right circumstances I would say it is worth it.
Comment by rot — July 10, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Bill Pullman’s “great speech” is a bunch of bullshit. I remember seeing this movie in the theater when it came out and it is the first distinct memory I have of thinking that there is something that film should be and this just wasn’t it. Really, this was a seminal film for me.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 10:11 am
“It seems like now you are saying that sometimes terrorist techniques are justified. Are you saying that and if so how do you square that with your pacificism?”
I have sympathy with people who are oppressed, and can understand why they may become so delusional and misguided so as to become soldiers/terrorists. I myself could never be one, I don’t find violence appealing in any way, only uncomfortable. Anthropologically, I definitely think any sort of conflict can be explained and understood, if not necesarily emotionally condoned. I sympathize with palestinians who kill themselves, I think it’s tragic that the world has places where people are forced to things like these. Of course, America is responsible for the state of Israel, but rather than place blame there, we should place blame at the true source, religion. No jewish faith, no worries - oh boy what a world.
That being said, I may not be a complete pacifist, because I do find ancient man vs. man warfare romantic. But I find any fair struggle romantic, it doesn’t necessarily have to be violent.
“I mean the most powerful nation to ever exist”
Seriously, do you work at FOX NEWS? I think Italy, Greece, Egypt, Mongolia and several other nations would take issue with a statement like this.
Comment by Henrik — July 10, 2008 @ 10:16 am
@Rot, all good points (I guess) but I wasn’t even talking about any of that. I’m talking about stuff like Hiroshima, Dresden, urban occupation , and aerial bombing which has an appalling civilian casualty rate. I’m talking about the strategic targeting of civilians.
@ “its not just enough to say there are orders to be followed and everyone can wash their hands of any of the bad apples or unexpected accidents…”
It is my sincere hope that there is a special section of hell reserved for people who are “just following orders”. I’m far angrier at the morons who carry out the orders then the morons who give them.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 10:17 am
I suppose it’s all a matter of how each side views itself as well. Those we call terrorists I’m sure consider themselves soliders, therefore completely justified. In the American Revolution, it’s very possible that the British viewed the Colonial Army as terrorists (or whatever term would have been used to classify them at that time, seeing as “terrorist” is, I believe, more a 20th century terminology).
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Seriously, do you work at FOX NEWS? I think Italy, Greece, Egypt, Mongolia and several other nations would take issue with a statement like this.
America is up there, but my vote would as most powerful of all-time would go to Imperial Rome.
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 10:30 am
yeah Hiroshima is a tough one to rationalize… and I actually understand Andrew’s sentiment of just wanting to avoid thinking further because it is not pleasent.
I think the crux is that political choices are not interchangeable with personal choices, and we want them to be (i.e. blood lust translating into capital punishment)… you delude yourself if you think you can treat political issues the same way you can treat your day to day issues one on one with people. Politics is ugly, my only hope is the right people are in there making the compromises that saves as many lives as possible and sticks to the principles laid out in the above Ignatieff quote.
Which Ancient Greece community was it that did not believe in violence only to be levelled to the ground by another that did?
Comment by rot — July 10, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Dave, agreed. Rome or today’s China might be contenders. But all in all as far as world influence, wealth, power, luxuries, military, etc. I don’t think it’s really a question. Not bragging or even saying it’s a good thing, just sayin’.
I guess I just take issue with unfounded accusations that the U.S. military goes into a war with the mindset that, “today, we’re going to blow up a school full of children.” As opposed to, “today, we’re going to blow up this weapons depot; but be careful, there’s a school next door and it is in our best interest to avoid hurting innocents.”
The word deliberate you guys are using is what is making me uneasy.
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Fine andrew, I’m sure the US military was trying to target a weapons factory when they accidentally firebombed the city of Dresden.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 10:57 am
@Andrew: as of today, I agree America is the most powerful. However, in the days of Rome, they controlled a large portion of the known world at that time (stretching across 3 continents), had incredible wealth (taken by force or given as tribute from other nations), power (they had to govern all of those territories, which gave them immense power over a large portion of the world), luxuries (baths, colesium, circus maximus, etc), military (not only was the home-grown Roman military strong, but it incorporated soldiers from conquered territories as well, making it even stronger), and so on.
America wins, obviously, in the area of technology, and with that technology, they could easily destroy the Roman Imperial Army in a straight-up fight. But give Americans spears instead of guns and missiles, and make them march instead of drive or fly, and my money is on Rome.
Certainly don’t mean to belittle my own country here, but facts are facts.
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Fine andrew, I’m sure the US military was trying to target a weapons factory when they accidentally firebombed the city of Dresden.
Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki…all black eyes for the United States, and a big reason why most people around the world dislike us. We complain about Iran getting nuclear capabilities, yet we are, to date, the only nation to ever actually use such a devastating bomb.
Still, I don’t think the modern American military has quite the same mindset. I would agree with Andrew that civilians are not targeted as a policy.
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Dave, not to mention the Roman empire was in power for Hundreds(?) of years and America has really only been around in its democratic state for 225 years. So yeah, I think you’re probably right.
Although it would be a fun scenario to work out on a computer. It would certainly be a good fight.
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:06 am
First of Dave, have you been following my comments through this thread? Do you understand the point that I’m making. It’s not “The US is evil! Oh noes!”. In fact my original comments never mentioned the US military, they were about warfare itself, not US policy.
Secondly, does the US have a policy of Aerial bombing populated cities? If so, then the US has a policy of killing civilians.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Rusty, I guess I was talking about present day military operations.
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Do you guys think the Roman Empire could’ve beaten Superman?
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Not a chance. Unless the aliens were there to help them… then maybe.
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:14 am
I think superman would be the ID4 aliens. Probably not the lame ass Bryan Singer Superman. But the real one could.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am
that is, he would beat the ID4 aliens.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 11:18 am
First of Dave, have you been following my comments through this thread? Do you understand the point that I’m making. It’s not “The US is evil! Oh noes!”. In fact my original comments never mentioned the US military, they were about warfare itself, not US policy.
Secondly, does the US have a policy of Aerial bombing populated cities? If so, then the US has a policy of killing civilians.
I never thought you were saying the U.S. is evil, nor were any of my comments presented as such.
Second, the U.S. Military certainly did, and does, bomb populated areas, but saying it’s done with the express aim of killing civilians (which the word ‘policy’ implies) is wrong. Right now, The U.S. enemy is hiding in populated areas. The policy is to get our enemy.
Third, no, the Roman Empire couldn’t have beaten Superman. But then, Superman would have probably been a Roman.
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Quintus Clarkus Kentus?
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
lol.
Ka-Lelius Maximus Chalybs
Comment by Andrew James — July 10, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
@ “Second, the U.S. Military certainly did, and does, bomb populated areas, but saying it’s done with the express aim of killing civilians (which the word ‘policy’ implies) is wrong.”
empty semantics.
@ “Right now, The U.S. enemy is hiding in populated areas.”
Right now, and in Quatar. And in Bosnia. And in Kuwait. And in Vietnam. Etc etc etc.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Empty semantics? hardly. You chose to say it was ‘policy’ to bomb civilians. By policy, you’re saying it’s written down somewhere, or has been decided on some higher level, that it’s a goal of the militarey to bomb civilians. No way.
Right now, and in Quatar. And in Bosnia. And in Kuwait. And in Vietnam. Etc etc etc.
I gave a modern example. Common sense would dictate if it’s happening now, it happened before as well. I never said that such tragedies were new (by “right now”, I was referring to the current situation, not saying something new is taking place). In fact, earlier today (just above) I said “Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki…all black eyes for the United States, and a big reason why most people around the world dislike us.”
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
So let me wrap my head around this concept. It happens today, it happened in the last war, and the one before that; and pretty much all the way back for sixty years, prior to which aerial bombing was not invented.
But it’s definitely not policy.
That is what I would consider a meaningless semantic distinction.
The US military is powerful enough that it doesn’t have to resort to aerial bombing campaigns and their high civilian casualty rates. The military knows that high civilian casualty rates are the inevitable outcome of aerial bombing campaigns. They carry them out anyways.
But it’s definitely not policy.
That is what I would consider a meaningless semantic distinction.
Comment by Russ T. James — July 10, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
I think this conversation is ludicrous. If people actually believe that V for Vendetta is more crooked than Independence Day, I’m floored. Too much Fox news does indeed rot the brain. I think that Braveheart is just as bloody awful as message wise as V for Vendetta (in fact I like V’s message (clumsy as it is) a lot more.
On the politics/policy side of things. Whoa, America still has the high moral ground? Didn’t they throw that away some time in the 1950s? They just have better PR than anyone else. I’m willing to bet that the average voting american is just as sleepy and uninformed and loaded down with dogma as a resident from any other country. It’s just that the American process is flashier and noisier.
Gotta side with Russ T. and Henrik on this one.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 10, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
The problem is you’re confusing a tragic, unfortunate consequence with intent.
Your said: “does the US have a policy of Aerial bombing populated cities? If so, then the US has a policy of killing civilians.”
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Your argument is like saying “you drive a car, therefore you want to deplete the ozone”. No. Does one lead to another? Yes, but that doesn’t make it intent, and it sure as shit doesn’t make it policy.
The US military is powerful enough that it doesn’t have to resort to aerial bombing campaigns and their high civilian casualty rates.
Well, apparently not, because as you said right before, they’ve been doing it for 60 years. Aside from the high civilian casualty rates that you mention, I can only assume such bombings cost a lot to carry out in manpower and dollars. If you have a better way of doing it, please pass it along.
But it’s definitely not policy.
That is what I would consider a meaningless semantic distinction.
No, it’s not policy. It’s unfortunate, it’s tragic, and I wish it didn’t happen. But no, it’s not policy. And it’s not a meaningless semantic distinction either.
But it’s definitely not policy.
That is what I would consider a meaningless semantic distinction.
Do you know you repeated yourself?
Oh, I get it…dramatic effect
Comment by Dave — July 10, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
On the politics/policy side of things. Whoa, America still has the high moral ground? Didn’t they throw that away some time in the 1950s? They just have better PR than anyone else. I’m willing to bet that the average voting american is just as sleepy and uninformed and loaded down with dogma as a resident from any other country. It’s just that the American process is flashier and noisier.
I don’t disagree with this. America has shot itself in the foot a number of times, and not just in Vietnam and Iraq, yet always managed to put a spin on it to make it seem acceptable. As I said earlier, we moan and complain that Iran having nuclear capabilities is unacceptable, yet we are the only ones who’ve actually ever used the damn bomb.
Having experienced the spin first-hand, with the U.S. claiming the high moral ground, saying our enemies are simply jealous of our lifestyle and freedoms, etc., etc., I can say I find it pretty disgusting. I’m certainly not defending The U.S. or the choices it’s made. I do have a problem with saying it’s policy to kill civilians when it isn’t, but that aside, I don’t disagree with most of what’s been said here.
Comment by Dave Becker — July 10, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
@ “The problem is you’re confusing a tragic, unfortunate consequence with intent.”
blah blah balh intent this, intent that. Morally corrupt monsters and villains are always going on and on about what they intended. The first thing dictators and maniacs do in the morning is justify the atrocities they committed yesterday.
I certaintly am not confusing intent with [bullshit euphemism alert] “unfortunate consequences” [/bullshit euphemism alert].
You are the one that is confused, I am justifiably more concerned with the real life consequences of a military action than I am with guessing about the debatable morally subjective and ultimately completely unknowable intentions of whoever it was who thought it would be a good idea to launch a shock and awe aerial campaign on a populated urban area.
@ “Your argument is like saying “you drive a car, therefore you want to deplete the ozone”.”