Ham-fisted and implausible

The ping pong player was John Kerry.......Secretary of State.....

The ping pong player was John Kerry.......Secretary of State.....

I agree with all of that. The pilots almost ruined the movie for me. It was so unrealistic. As if they would get so far in the military without knowing what they were bound to do.

But you have to understand that you hold that view because you either hate or fear women, or probably both, since they are two sides of the same coin.

Cavemen like you will never count for anything in a major way, because you are going to be left far, far behind. And, I say good riddance.

Trust me, Mrs. Clinton neither wants nor needs your vote. Go vote for the buffoon.

Responding to each of your paragraphs in turn:


The story did not hinge on whether the drone pilot obeyed an order or not at all. He was within his rights to ask from a revised CDA. It is mentioned that he has questioned a Colonel as she give him an order, but he is of course not punished as Mirren's character knows that he is (by the letter of the law and their ROEs) correct.

You are clearly not a military expert, I agree with you there. That's evidenced by the fact you listed several consequences that mixed both punishment and counselling as if there were little difference. Also, the purpose of the chain of command is absolutely not to clear those lower down of culpability, it is so that everything works like a Swiss watch, from the top down. Right the way from the American Airman all the way up to the cabinet members at a COBRA meeting. The film shows how there are strict checks and measures for every eventuality by having every eventuality come up, and it does it well.

The fact that a multinational military operation would halt to protect one little girl is not ludicrous, it is absolutely necessary. Every single action needs to be legal and new factor cannot be ignored simply because it is inconvenient. They needed to discuss the girl and whether the risk of her injury or death was acceptable to stop a suicide bombing. So obviously, yes, that is the EXACT kind of place that an officer from the Army Legal Service would be attached, to quickly clear up any new legality issues as and when they arise.

The US Secretary of State (I believe he was) wasn't being portrayed as a cowboy or flippant; the point of the setting of his scene was to show how much easier this kind of decision becomes when you don't have to witness the aftermath. He knew striking was the right option, but he could make it quicker than the others because he wasn't looking at the potential innocent victim like they were. He was enjoying a game of ping-pong. I thought this was a very clever scene to include.

You have thoroughly missed the point of the film. We DO meditate on it for a long time, we DO go through "protracted hand-wringing", because we think about the consequences of our actions. We have to carry out actions like this because Al-Shabbab exist, and they don't think in moral terms. It showed us as a victim to our own bureaucracy when we debate the morality to the point where they almost get away whilst we're still debating.


----------
My favourite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/lZVUp6LxPvo/

[deleted]

I agree with everything you say - but I'd LIKE to live in a world where people have crises of conscience instead of ruthlessly pursuing their own agenda. Film doesn't have to portray the world as it is; it also provides the canvas for an idealistic version of how we'd like it to be. Yes, it's complete tosh, but it's well-meaning and thought provoking tosh, so just for the simple fact that it puts its audience at the centre of an ethical dilemma, I'm willing to let it slide. 






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"