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.

[–] ckimsey-1 8 years ago

This movie divides the thinkers and the feelers. If the feelers would have had their way, dozens more civilians would have been killed.

[–] frankzappayay 8 years ago

The problem was that the politicians don't care about people. They only care about votes. And it is better to let a shopping mall full of people die at the hand a-rabs than it is to blow them up beforehand but have the media bitch about a kid that died in the process.

That's just politics. If they cared about people and doing the right thing, there would be no movie. They would have made the decision in 2 seconds.

[–] InglouriousSister 8 years ago

People blindly obeying is the biggest problem in the world. "I have orders...", "The Führer told me...", "But my Imam says..."

I draw a very clear distinction between the kind of war you engage in to defend yourself and your country, and the kind of war you engage in because of economic or political interest of both yourself and your country or the alliance your country is part of. Since the WWII both the UK and the US engage solely on the latter. It is not my intention to be disrespectful, because I believe the military personnel themselves think they are doing something noble. I would, however, love to think some of them think about what it is they are involved in like the pilots in this movie, rather than turning off their brain and collecting a pay check for it.

I'm in my late-20s, if that matters (since you were talking of this being a matter of generation.) From a country that isn't exactly Switzerland but has made attempts at neutrality since the WWII.

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!

Most of the people in this movie - because it wasn't just the pilots - weren't hesitating because of ethics or anything like that (and I'm not trying to make a statement on it either) though. They were hesitating because if the public heard a UK/US strike in a country that wasn't in war killed a child the public opinion would turn against them. That would mean the Al-Shabaab (in this case) would have, as stated in this film, "won the propaganda war", which is just as important if not infinitely more that the "real war" (whatever that means these days.)

From a military point of view, which one is more harmful in the long run: 1) the public opinion on whatever this operation was turning against military intervention and possibly igniting even more anti-American sentiment amongst the extremists in the struck area or 2) letting 80+ people die but being able to pin it all on the "enemy" and thus having "additional legitimacy" for military intervention?

Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

[–] rosalee_adams 8 years ago

I served throughout Vietnam war + as a Navy line officer and am a brat as well
(dad was 30yr USN MSC as well as 8yrs additional adviser in I Corps)
During my years I worked comm, intel and aviation related and during the latter
I attended intel briefs which featured maps full of OFF LIMITS
despite fact we knew of heavy enemy infiltration in the region
Dad spoke of same while he served in I Corps...Hue and Khe Sanh
were good examples of micromanaging.
And speakng of Vietnam, I will NEVER forgive MSM for convincing America WE were the enemy during Vietnam war..
It is no different now. The entity in the WH is a firm believer in micromanaging
and we have paid dearly for it.
I thank God the world did not address Hitler and Tojo as it now addresses
Islamic terrorism
Until they do there is no victory
In this film saving one at the cost of how many more dead and maimed points to the current lunacy abundant not only Washington but worldwide AND the enemy KNOWS IT
That line 'if we lose 80 we win the propaganda war. if we kill one child they win'
My question for the film makers is how many innocent lives were taken at the Nairobi shopping center and how many at the university? How many would have died had the two suicide bombers been allowed to leave? How many more would
Danforth have claimed had she walked and planned other mass killings?
The pilot who said he joined the Air Force to work off his student loan
reflected such in his lack of full comprehension..He needs to find a new
profession and so does his assistant
They smack too much of what is PC not what is in fact reality

[–] somf 8 years ago

I am as liberal as you can get and I thought this was way too PC. I would not have hesitated for one second to proceed based on what could be gained. I think the whole idea of drones it to minimize collateral damage and I think they do a terrific job.Did not believe a minute of this film. Much preferred Good Kill.

[–] everybody_the_critic 8 years ago

We are all quite happy to cheer for any new weapons technology as long as its not pointed at us or our children. The rest of your point is meaningless in my opinion.

[–] serenity159 8 years ago

The problem with your analogy is that in WW2, Korea and Vietnam the objective of defeating the enemy could be achieved by dropping bombs.

Dropping bombs doesn't defeat terrorism, only escalates it. Killing 100 innocent civilians to get one possible terrorist produces 1000 more terrorists or their sympathisers.

So unless you are in business of killing (like the MIC are) and not necessary winning then it's not only immoral but counter productive.

~Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes~