MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > Germany would have won WW2 if we handcuf...

Germany would have won WW2 if we handcuffed the military like today

posted 9 years ago by buildersent
17 replies | jump to latest

This was a pretty good movie, though I am confused why it was focused on the Brit military. It would have been better if it was American focused since we are doing the heavy lifting.

The fact that the little girl was outside the building should not have mattered at all. We are in a war and in war people die. better the enemy's people die instead of our people.

Dr. Who is to entertainment what Special Olympics is to athleticism.

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

I didn't know whether Eye in the Sky was a "liberal" or "conservative" cinematic screed. It starts off so good. The acting is great. Then...an hour-and-a-half of stuff that strains belief to the breaking point.

I don't believe for a second a scenario such as this one is remotely possible. It's almost as if Eye in the Sky, which featured at least two "Homeland" actors, took a page from "Homeland's" alleged nexusthe drone strike at the madrassa.

[–] user-15159 9 years ago

Hollywood is trying to whitewash american and british military

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

I'm not sure you could describe the couple and their daughter as "the enemy's people." The film made a point of showing they were peaceful, moderate, progressive people who considered the radical Muslims "fanatics." Unless they are "the enemy's people" on the basis of their race alone, doesn't that put them on our side?

Basta, basta, basta.

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 9 years ago

I would have blamed the suicide belts going off and blowing up the house but the 2nd missle strike would have left a crater in the ground.
The stupid kid didn't want to leave, she wanted to make more money, understanding that.
The skinny black guy should have grabbed her money bag and made her chase him, getting her out of the area!

Spoiler alert for them spoil sports out there! Y'all like spoiled milk, stop crying over it!

[–] bayowolf 9 years ago

The [Somali agent] should have grabbed her money bag and made her chase him, getting her out of the area!

He was trying to stay "under the radar" especially in front of all these fundamentalist freaks who, having seen the Somali agent steal the purse, would have whipped out a big knife and chop off the man's hand. Meanwhile, the girl may go back to her table in the blast radius.

~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.

[–] lightningcows 9 years ago

agreed, regarding the original poster's comment about the "enemy's people". It could be used to justify the massacre at My Lai or a genocidal atrocity. Certainly, it is the same rationale used by al Qaeda and ISIL to justify attacks on civilian targets.

[–] bayowolf 9 years ago

Certainly, it is the same rationale used by al Qaeda and ISIL to justify attacks on civilian targets.

Quite! As was pointed out after the attacks in Paris last Fall, the terrorists are trying to turn the West into a series of authoritarian states that would think nothing of carpet-bombing and/or nuking the Middle East. The terrorists would tell the Muslim population of the world, "See? We told you--the West hates Islam." Meanwhile, the features that makes Western Civilization something to be revered would be destroyed.

~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

Exactly!

Basta, basta, basta.

[–] IMDbeans 8 years ago

War is always about killing innocents. Only 10% of Germans supported Hitler but the Allies dropped bombs on girls like this one every day. Did you think war was just unicorns and lollipops?

[–] glock78 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carthage

The raid was requested by members of the Danish resistance movement in the hope of freeing imprisoned members, and destroying the records of the Gestapo to disrupt their operations. The RAF initially turned down the request as too risky, due to the location in a crowded city centre and the need for low-level bombing, but they approved the raid in early 1945 after repeated requests.
Once approval had been given, planning for the raid took several weeks. This included making scale models of the target building and the surrounding city, for use by pilots and gunners in preparation for a very low-level attack.
...
But, part of the raid was mistakenly directed against a nearby boarding school; it resulted in a total of 125 civilian deaths (including 86 schoolchildren and 18 adults at the school).

THAT was a REAL and clear war, with clear enemies and targets.
And still, Allies refused to simply bomb the middle of a crowded city because of civilians. Despite the demands by local resistance.
And with a good reason - as proven by not ONE little girl killed but dozens, when they finally did the run.

And still, despite all that care for civilians, Allies somehow managed to win the war. I know, right?

Also, you might wanna look up various conventions, uniform code of military justice and wartime rules and whatnot.
I know Americans believe such rules don't apply to them... but still, lovely company to keep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

Hey... Might that be the reason why the focus of the movie is on the Brits?
You know... them not having that entire "burning babies with napalm" image?

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

You do realise that the Allies quite often choose to bomb the bejesus out of entire cities, both axis and axis occupied, causing many thousands of innocent deaths right?
Sure they tried to avoid civilian deaths, sometimes thwy tried to warn the locals via radio messages and leaflets, but more than once they just dropped tons of explosives from planes knowing very well civilians would die.

[–] lone-foxx 8 years ago

Thats horrible to hear but also extremely informative; I respect you for telling how it really happened and trying to warn those people. I am sick and tired of living in a world where so few seem to respect history unless it fits their own agenda. The white washing needs to stop; in war everyone has blood on their hands.

"This is What You Want... This is What You Get"

[–] Nethlem 8 years ago

WWII is still not the worst example of civilian death rations, it's only been the start of a steady increase. On a pure "combatants per civilian" death basis, both the Iraq and the Afghanistan War have taken quite more of a toll on the civilian populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

With drones in Pakistan the numbers get even worse: http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[–] sweiland75 9 years ago

You're an idiot.

[–] tek87-768-651706 9 years ago

Are you sure you would feel that way if it was your daughter? When you cause collateral, you only make more enemies. Look at the bigger picture.

[–] m_antonioni 8 years ago

If we handcuffed the military that way in WW II, Germany would still have lost to Russia, but we wouldn't have gotten western Europe. So Europeans would be free today, instead of living under NATO occupation.

[–] bayowolf 8 years ago

Not quite! Had the Russians gotten all of Europe (which what would have happened if "Germany would still have lost to Russia, but we wouldn't have gotten western Europe"), the Communist Bloc would still be a going concern today...instead of collapsing under its own weight a quarter-century ago. Ask anyone who have had the "pleasure" of living in the Communist Bloc--they'll tell you that they weren't free.

~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.