MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Movie disgracefully takes US presence in...

Movie disgracefully takes US presence in Middle East for granted

posted 13 years ago by miljenko
9 replies | jump to latest

Some day, people are going to look back at movies such as this one, and think of them as we now think of Third Reich cinema. I detest the fact that US presence in the Middle East is treated as a perfectly normal thing. And that 3 dead marines are presented as a perfectly justified motive for the massacre of civilians. No one is asking why are US Troops present in the Middle East. Oh, so that US can keep on guzzling 20 million barels per day!!!??? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption) Compare that obscene figure with other countries in both absolute and relative terms and see how insanely wasteful US is. So, that's the only reason why US is there and why it "heroically" wages "war against terror" and "topples evil dictators" and "helps" the local people find their long-lost "freedom". Furthermore, it isn't about "honor" or "honorable service", it's about SUV-s and suburbs and the "American way of living", and I personally find that disgusting.

[–] Desepticon 13 years ago

I don't know what movie you were watching but the only occupation happening was of the embassy. The marines were only called in when the embassy was under attack. However, I would have preferred the ending where we did't get to see the tape. I think rather or not the people were attacking should have been left for the viewer to decide. This way it's more important what the Marines thought they saw, rather than what actually happened.

Furthermore, while I disagree with some US foreign policy, I don't think it's quite as black and white as you make it out to be.

My brother was eaten by wolves on the CT Turnpike

[–] warlord-burner 13 years ago

Actually regardless of whether individuals in the crowd opened fire it is still a war crime under the Geneva Convention to indiscriminately return fire, as a soldier in the armed service of a nation you are supposed to minimize damage to civilians even if that puts you in greater danger, so the marines could return fire but only to specifically target any armed individuals(sure ricochets and overpenetration might result in civilian casualties which would be unfortunate but an unfortunate fact of war) but "spray and pray" is forbidden and all participants should be tried and convicted, there is no acceptable defense for such an act.

[–] Stirling00 10 years ago

Terrorists are non state actors hence do not enjoy Geneva protections. I can't believe this was even a dilemma as the film proposed: The Marines were ENTIRELY justified in their response.

If you're an unarmed protester wishing to avoid getting caught in the crossfire then DON'T stick around when the neighborhood jihadi crew shoots at and Molotov cocktails US territory and then be totally *beep* BEWILDERED when embassy Marines return fire!

[–] warlord-burner 10 years ago

The protections offered to civilians under the Geneva Conventions apply regardless. The United States as a signatory are bound to uphold them.

You are correct that the terrorists does not enjoy the protection of the Geneva protections, and as such the marines had the right to shoot them. However the civilians in the crowd do as long as they're not carrying arms and are acting in a threatening manner. Both of these conditions are required, merely carrying arms is not enough as the Geneva Conventions affords civilians to carry small arms for self defence(the definition of small arms is broad and encompasses basically anything classified as a man portable weapon(.50BMG machineguns, Stinger launchers and RPG's included).

If you're an unarmed protester then the marines would not be allowed to fire at you under the rules of the Geneva Conventions regardless, sure they would be allowed to shoot the terrorists and some collateral damage could possibly be expected. But indiscriminately mowing down a crowd just because a few in the crowd were a threat is disproportionate, illegal and it is a war crime, same as the Apache incident in real life was.

But the US has a less than stellar record when it comes to war crimes so one shouldn't be surprised, guess why the US has stated that it'll invade the Hague if the ICC dares to try to put a US citizen on trial?

[–] Stirling00 10 years ago

Terms like "illegal" and "war crimes" don't really apply. It's something that can be applied ex post facto after you've won but I'm not inclined to take it seriously until it is invoked to actually help the US in one situation or another. These sorts of arguments are essentially "lawfare."

International law is, at best, theoretical and the terrorists who were shooting at the US embassy got those civilians killed by using them as human shields [see: Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc.] and THAT is an actual, verifiable breach of ersatz "international law"- in addition to just being a sh**** thing to do.

And until The Hague can dispatch a rapid response, blue-helmeted snatch team to infiltrate West Asian or MidEast hell holes to render strongmen [and their top aides] back to The Netherlands for a timely trial [not like, say, Milosevic's] they are not in any position to judge US foreign policy or make it subject to political witch hunts targeting US officials undertaken because they cannot win the argument or the issue in any other way.

[–] clemphotography 10 years ago

You've got a very twisted view point of that somehow two wrong don't make a right. You seem to forget that this is a FILM and not real life. I think it's a bit distasteful and quite clear propaganda, that this admittedly controversial and morally jubius senario was painted in such a clear cut way of Heroic Marine vs Evil civillians. This is a film that should have grey areas, really raise questions and let people make there own mind up, instead we are presented with a situation where we are told its apparently ok to shoot civillians enmasse... dodgy...

[–] Stirling00 10 years ago

If American protestors were attacking a foreign embassy (which is foreign
territory, btw) guards sent to protect that embassy would be justified in shooting back.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Foster (878) a year ago

Hahahahaha Another joke post from the troll