MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > Maybe It's A Generational Thing (Probabl...

Maybe It's A Generational Thing (Probably OT)

posted 8 years ago by CalifDad
25 replies | jump to latest

Having family and friends that have served in Vietnam, Korea and WWII on top of Libya, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (both wars), I'm totally shocked at the hesitation shown by the US military, much less the UK Government. As the US Sec. of State representative (Julia something?) said, it's a pretty simple calculation for allowable collateral damage. This is even why so much of our airstrike technology has improved over the decades!

Look back throughout the history of the most recent conflicts and wars and look at how we have managed to reduce the collateral damage. Yes, I know the movie showed what many of us say is morally abhorrent. But look from it from the other side.

When, not if, those vests went off the casualty count and eve the collateral damage would have been much, much higher than what was shown. I think we all have seen the damage that IED and IED vests can cause. That's why it's called terrorism!

But then again, maybe it's because I'm old enough and have seen enough horrors to recognize that there is always a civilian cost during war times. This has been true since Biblical times and before.

Simply put, in times of war or times of peace one always has to be willing to accept the "Butcher's Bill." If you're not, then you end up being sold to the Butcher by the other side.

PS The movie was superbly done. The writing, directing, acting was all top notch. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be so many stirred up feelings and emotions regarding this film.

[–] Immcarr 8 years ago

This movie is entirely preposterous. The kind of qualms shown by the figure-heads (i.e politicians) is infuriating. I wonder how they would react if their kids were playing around in Trafalgar square when a bomb attack masterminded by the terrorist woman took place.

I'm sure someone would comfort them with a 'don't feel bad, at least you saved an innocent live back then, even if eventually it costs your own kids' life and a dozen more. You tell me what the politician's response would be then. I'll tell you what: they would commit suicide!

As for the military personnel involved (drone pilots). I would recommend they g through a court-martial and, in the best scenario for them, be honorably dismissed. They are under orders and their feelings do not matter. Better work at Toys R Us.

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

I wonder how they'd react if their kids were playing in the alley outside that housing compound.

Glad to know that the REAL INTERNET TOUGHGUYS of the world are still out there on imdb, ever ready to blow up a million brown people to protect our freedumb! Carry on brave soldier! Carry on!

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

I'm going to go ahead and clarify here, just to prevent more stupid rhetoric. I do think that speed and chain of command are VERY important in any military engagement, and I think that they made the right call in the end here.

But loss of civilian, innocent life should NEVER be callously disregarded as unimportant.

[–] sbuchholz5741 8 years ago

Typical whinney ass liberal......would expect no less......you probably DO work at toys r us.............

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

You think Bomber Harris worried about collateral damage? Hell, during WWII the bombing of civilians, by all sides, was part of the strategy. And disregard for civilians has happened in every other war that's ever been fought. You'll quickly lose (or is that loose) the war if you start worrying about being surgical, especially in a guerilla war, where the enemy lives among the civilians. Plus, it's not as if they give the killing of civilians a second thought.

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

[–] vbkindropzone-1-626925 8 years ago

Lol (: . . . I agree with you.
It was infuriating for me as well ! The whole operation in jeopardy because of 1 little girl !! One thing I found funny was the woman politician was named "Angela "

[–] gpxdlr 8 years ago

I agree with you about those USAF personnel. They both should quit and find something else to do. OMG! The female airman had tears, tears! The pilot's eyes watered. I would have wrote them both up at a minimum for almost not doing their duties.

You think that trucker in Nice, if he had lived, would feel bad about the children he killed? No! He would have said, "God Is Great!" "It is Gods Will!"

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

You would have wrote (sic) them up for almost not doing their duty? Because they showed basic human feelings they should be wrote (sic) up?

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

[–] sbuchholz5741 8 years ago

I agree 1000% and was saying those drone pilots should have been court martialed as well. The teary eyes and sniffling was driving me crazy. I hope to god that our current (real) drone pilots have all grown a pair and would never react the way those pilots did at first. Toys r us is where they definitely belonged!

[–] werecow2003 8 years ago

I agree, the hesitation (and, I would say, extreme moral cowardice) shown in the movie was troubling to me as well, but not very surprising; it's a version of the trolley problem from the philosophy and psychology of ethics. Basically: a runaway trolley or train is heading towards a crowd of unsuspecting people, and the only way you can stop it is by killing a single person. In the first version, you divert the train by throwing a switch, killing the one person that is standing on the other train track. In the second version, you must push a person in front of the train to derail it; what do you do? Most people have (much) more difficulty with the second version than the first, even though the result is the same. It reveals that people are hesitant to be active participants in causing the death of another person, but fail to show the same consideration when their inaction leads to death. Based on that, I suspect that the movie probably reflects reality to some extent.

[–] dbroadwa-63336 8 years ago

The movie collectively outlines Utilitarianism and Deontology Philosophical viewpoints. You can associate any of the 5 ethics problems (Trolley Dilemma, The Fat Man, Transplant etc) outlined by Foot, Unger and Thomson. It's Mill vs Kant at it's core. There are a lot of takes on the argument. I wrote a lengthy 20 page term paper on this topic for a Morality and Ethics class. Needless to say I'm recommending this movie to my Philosophy Professor who taught the course.

Those interested, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals would be recommended books of reading. Both will provide you with a much better understanding of the philosophical argument. I'd highly recommend it instead of arguing for arguing sake on which you personally feel stronger towards with no regards to the actual underlining argument.

[–] werecow2003 8 years ago

I'd highly recommend it instead of arguing for arguing sake on which you personally feel stronger towards with no regards to the actual underlining argument.

The argument is certainly worth having and reading about, and the problems are worth looking into. Philosophy sets the scene and frames the questions, psychology makes the observations, but you need a series of subjective value judgements to take a position of your own, and that may not always be consistent between settings.

As for the movie, for me, the political maneuvering in this movie seemed cowardly and noncommittal, mainly because it seemed to be more about trying to avoid taking responsibility than about taking or saving lives. And it wasn't really a contest for me given the stakes (1 life lost versus 100). But I have to admit, in the trolley problem and comparable dilemmas (especially the transplant one), I don't know if I'd really feel the same when put in that position. Nor, for that matter, if the costs had been more symmetrical (i.e.: sacrifice one life to save one life, or even two or three). There's a large gray area there, but I think (hope) there are not many people who wouldn't sacrifice one little girl to, say, save all of humanity, so there is I think a real dichotomy to go with the continuum.

[–] tanis_ivy 8 years ago

I was born in the 80s. Have no ties to the military, family wise or other. I don't even play call of duty.

But the movie would have been a lot shorter if I were in aaron Paul's place. The lives of the many out weigh the lives of the few.

[–] umme4uke 8 years ago

The conflicts you mention all have various reasons for starting and continuing - it's not a 1 shoe fits all scenario.

WW2 was a pure war - a global conflict in which many combatant countries were 'invited' into the fray after the conflict initiated.

Afghanistan was an extension of the cold war, a power play between America and Russia, in which America actually created the Taliban.

Invitation is an important element here - to my knowledge the US has never been invited into Iraq and it's intervention has been opposed by the UN at times.

There is a pattern of protector turning to aggressor over time - and the aggressor will always be more legally and morally culpable then the victim or the protector. The West avoids accountability now because it is not in the righteous position.

And it's not a generational thing - I'm old and I think the Allies were mostly justified in WW2, the US was somewhat justified in Vietnam, barely justified in Afghanistan and not at all justified in Iraq. The good guy has become the bad guy, over time.

[–] MrMcMurphy 8 years ago

Great comment. I, personally, loved the hesitation, but only because the circumstances gave them that luxury. I'm guessing the luxury of time isn't always the case, in which case: "rifle, rifle, rifle!"

Fortunately, the people at the top are most likely 100% in your camp (at least, at the top of the military).

For all the simpletons PRIORITIZING the little girl/villainizing the Drone, they should have to watch an "alternate ending" in which the two suicide vests turn 160 men, women, AND CHILDREN into indecipherable piles of intestines and paraplegics.

[–] texansfan-24954 8 years ago

Sometimes your only choices are bad and worse. It's that simple and/or complex.

[–] YippeeKiYay_MF 8 years ago

it's easy being brave at a safe distance.

I'll be good I swear... I'll never see a movie ever again.

[–] raf-33 8 years ago

CalifDad, you are making assumptions (which a soldier should never do), how many civilians would have been killed if the moment the vest wearer tried to use his vest he was shot in the head? Or his car was hit by a drone strike? Or his detonator failed? Or he was killed at a Kenyan roadblock?

None, but we'll never know. It's easy to justify killing someone if you just assume that they would have went on to kill a bunch of people, and once you have shot them dead you will never know nor likely ever have to prove what they would have because prevention means no need for hindsight, but killing someone just because they have the potential to do something is a murky grey world of it's own.

It would have been a very different world if after the utter devastation of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki we found out the Japanese were planning to surrender anyway, as it was we just had to cross our fingers for a few weeks until we found that definitive proof that they wouldn't have surrendered. Shoot first, ask questions afterwards is probably why despite having the best equipment and training both US police forces and US armed forces are trusted about as much as a junkie who has already robbed you 12 times and said I won't do it again.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov