PDA

View Full Version : Blasphemy! Liberal panzy attacks greatest documentary of all time!



Jerk
10/26/2008, 08:18 AM
Red Dawn’s message for today

After 24 years, what does the chest-thumper really say about America?
By David Plotz
Slate.com

The middle Reagan years — the fingernail-gnawing, doomsday-clock*watching, pre-perestroika finale of the Cold War — were a dreadful time for movies in general, but they were the heyday of the Armageddon film. The mid-’80s gave us War Games, The Day After, Invasion USA, Testament, Amerika and The Terminator, and they gave me nightmares.

But except for The Terminator, none of the mid-’80s Armageddon movies has had as much enduring in*fluence as 1984’s Red Dawn. The film is beloved of American military types. In 2003, the Army named its opera*tion to capture Saddam Hussein “Red Dawn” and dubbed the two Saddam safe houses it was raiding “Wolverine 1” and “Wolverine 2” after the flick’s child rebels.

Recognizing that we’re again living in an age of existential dread, MGM recently announced plans to remake Red Dawn. With the Russian army having run rampant over Georgia and the Kremlin hissing over American plans to base a missile defense system in Poland, this seemed the right mo*ment to revisit Red Dawn. But Red Dawn did not conjure up the chest*swelling patriotism I felt as a 14-year*old. Instead, it turned out to be dis*turbing in an entirely unexpected way.

Red Dawn embodies conservative nutterdom in a way few films not made by Mel Gibson have ever man*aged. If Ann Coulter made a movie, it would look like Red Dawn. This is thanks to director John Milius.

Apocalypse Now screenwriter, Conan the Barbarian auteur, and former NRA board member, Milius is a mili*tary zealot, infatuated with the war*rior code. Red Dawn is really a fetish movie, an ode to guns and blood.

Milius’ vision of the world is cu*riously — or perhaps presciently — congruent with that of modern Bu*chananite isolationists. World War III begins as an immigration problem: Latino illegal aliens infiltrate and sabotage Midwestern Air Force bases. Pathetic old Europe betrays America and refuses to come to our aid. The first thing the Commies do when they seize Calumet, Colorado, is round up all the gun owners — relying on “Form 4473,” a real-life ATF form for registering gun sales.

In my memory, Red Dawn cele*brated America and its virtues. But its guiding ideology is actually fascism. The only politician in Red Dawn, the mayor of Calumet, is a quisling who rats out his neighbors for execution. His son, the student-body president, turns out to be the traitorous Wolver*ine . The warrior code of Red Dawn is nihilistic: Glory and death are the same; there is no higher aim than to fight. It never imagines an America that is worth saving: We have corrupt institutions and cowardly politicians.

But what’s most unsettling is that the movie’s historical parallels have been turned upside down. In 1984, the Soviets of Red Dawn represented the Soviets, and the Wolverines repre*sented both the Americans and also the Afghan mujahideen then defeat*ing the Red Army in a guerilla war.

But on re-viewing, Red Dawn isn’t a stark reminder of Cold War fears. Rather, it’s a pretty good movie about Iraq, with the United States in the role of the Soviets and the insurgents in the role of the Wolverines.

In Red Dawn, the Soviets invade a country whose customs they know not. They ham-handedly toss lead*ing citizens into hellish prisons. They maltreat the civilian population. They appropriate private and government buildings for themselves. They re*place local commerce with their own.

The insurgents are at first merely scared, angry kids, but they’re hard*ened by the viciousness of the Soviets. Seeing nothing to lose, they become suicidal terrorists who assassinate, bomb civilian targets, gleefully mur*der wounded and captive Russians, and eventually martyr themselves in theatrical, insane ways. Ultimately, the insurgency and the anxiety of oc*cupying a hostile land take their toll on the invaders. By the end, the de*moralized Cuban commander is sub*mitting his resignation. MGM is so far tight-lipped about the plot of its Red Dawn remake, but I wonder: Will the new Wolverines be us — or fighting us?

Flagstaffsooner
10/26/2008, 08:25 AM
Where did you copy that from. You surely didn't think up that $hit yourself.;)

Flagstaffsooner
10/26/2008, 08:26 AM
oops I saw it now. slate.com

soonerboomer93
10/26/2008, 10:36 AM
hooray for slate :rolleyes:

that site is an absolute piece of ****

bri
10/26/2008, 10:39 AM
WOLVERIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENS!!!

Will Patrick Swayze be in the remake? If so, in! :D

yermom
10/26/2008, 10:45 AM
i haven't seen that movie in a whlie...

the guy does have a point though. a lot of people called "terrorists" would be called "freedom fighters" if they were on another side

bri
10/26/2008, 10:57 AM
Shhhhh, we're not supposed to say that out loud. :D

soonerboomer93
10/26/2008, 12:59 PM
i haven't seen that movie in a whlie...

the guy does have a point though. a lot of people called "terrorists" would be called "freedom fighters" if they were on another side

I must have missed the scene where the wolverines simutaneuously crash planes in the the Kremlin and downtown Havana...

Is that the intro in the new version?

:pop:

yermom
10/26/2008, 01:08 PM
i didn't say all of them... i just think the definition used lately seems to expand to anyone taking arms against American forces

soonerboomer93
10/26/2008, 01:13 PM
i guess it depends on their motivation

Is their primary motivation to Kill Americans, or something else?

Unfortunately, for the vast majority, it's the primary.

yermom
10/26/2008, 01:19 PM
or they don't like the new government that someone installed in their country?

how do you define a terrorist?

mostly what i would call terrorism would involve killing civilians and taking hostages

IEDs and AKs against military targets is more like guerrilla warfare, and not far off the kinda thing we did to gain independence in this country IMO

lexsooner
10/26/2008, 01:21 PM
This makes me think of 80s movie star Lea Thompson, one of the stars of Red Dawn. They say her acting was so bad in the initial filming of All the Right Moves (a dern good flick) that the director was seriously thinking about replacing her. I always like her. She always seemed like a pretty honest, genuine person - chain smoking, grey smoker's complexion, daughter of alcoholic parents and a dysfunctional home, modest acting talent - and pretty honest about it all. Lea rocks!

soonerboomer93
10/26/2008, 01:35 PM
but they are killing civilians

in fact, they're killing far more civilians then they are US soldiers

you don't bomb a local market place if you want to kill foreign soldiers, you don't attack the local police station to kill us soldiers

you do that as a destabalization tactic

yermom
10/26/2008, 01:38 PM
and our bombs don't kill civilians?

Chuck Bao
10/26/2008, 01:46 PM
I thought a terrorist was defined as someone trying to evoke terror within a certain population. Our hate crimes bill gives special penalties against those who commit crimes with the intent to kill, punish or scare those in a minority. That's much more the issue than seeing terrorists only as foreigners.

Still, Red Dawn is a classic cult film. Every kid who has held a gun has thought about it.

I'm not sure. But, I suppose kids in other lands could get that same idea.

Jerk
10/26/2008, 01:48 PM
I thought a terrorist was defined as someone trying to evoke terror within a certain population. Our hate crimes bill gives special penalties against those who commit crimes with the intent to kill, punish or scare those in a minority. That's much more the issue than seeing terrorists only as foreigners.

Still, Red Dawn is a classic cult film. Every kid who has held a gun has thought about it.

I'm not sure. But, I suppose kids in other lands could get that same idea.

I have been stocking up and waiting for those commies ever since I first saw that movie!

Chuck Bao
10/26/2008, 02:06 PM
I have been stocking up and waiting for those commies ever since I first saw that movie!

I'm not even in the same zip code as you, Jerk. But yeah, I think about it, probably more than I know. I still have frequent nightmares about army invasions of my family farm. I'm a pretty good shot in my dreams.

In real life, I am fanatical about stockpiling medicine, canned food and water. I'm more fearful of the breakdown of society from a flu outbreak. A gun wouldn't be a bad thing either. I need to go buy a gun.

yermom
10/26/2008, 02:23 PM
otherwise the guys with the guns just get all your stockpiled stuff ;)

JohnnyMack
10/26/2008, 02:49 PM
I don't think the people we are fighting against in Iraq (minus the operatives working for al Qaida in Iraq) by definition qualify as terrorists. No more than our revolutionaries led by Washington did or the Wolverines.

jkjsooner
10/26/2008, 02:57 PM
or they don't like the new government that someone installed in their country?

how do you define a terrorist?

mostly what i would call terrorism would involve killing civilians and taking hostages

IEDs and AKs against military targets is more like guerrilla warfare, and not far off the kinda thing we did to gain independence in this country IMO

I agree but unfortunately the Bush administration has muddled the definition so much by calling anyone who resists our forces "terrorists."

Given, some (but hardly all) of those guys come from Al Qaida so they may be "terrorists" but their acts against our forces are not "acts of terrorism." Some others kill civilians intentionally and they are definitely terrorists and their acts are acts of terrorism.

Don't get me wrong. I hate the guys who attack our forces and I hope we kill them all, but if we're going to fight a war on terrorism it is in our best interest to keep the definition of "terrorism" as contained as possible.

If we don't keep the definition contained, we give relevance to the idiots who call us terrorists every time we accidentally kill civilians (even though we do everything we can to prevent that).

yermom
10/26/2008, 02:59 PM
exactly

soonerboomer93
10/26/2008, 09:45 PM
I agree but unfortunately the Bush administration has muddled the definition so much by calling anyone who resists our forces "terrorists."

Given, some (but hardly all) of those guys come from Al Qaida so they may be "terrorists" but their acts against our forces are not "acts of terrorism." Some others kill civilians intentionally and they are definitely terrorists and their acts are acts of terrorism.

Don't get me wrong. I hate the guys who attack our forces and I hope we kill them all, but if we're going to fight a war on terrorism it is in our best interest to keep the definition of "terrorism" as contained as possible.

If we don't keep the definition contained, we give relevance to the idiots who call us terrorists every time we accidentally kill civilians (even though we do everything we can to prevent that).

foreign operatives, in that zone, without a uniform can certainly be classified as terrorists, no matter who they attack

Widescreen
10/26/2008, 10:26 PM
i haven't seen that movie in a whlie...

the guy does have a point though. a lot of people called "terrorists" would be called "freedom fighters" if they were on another side

Yep. Gotta love those freedom fighters blowing up and torturing thousands of Iraqi civilians. Wolverines, indeed.

Widescreen
10/26/2008, 10:28 PM
I don't think the people we are fighting against in Iraq (minus the operatives working for al Qaida in Iraq) by definition qualify as terrorists. No more than our revolutionaries led by Washington did or the Wolverines.

I doubt anyone thinks you'd feel any other way.

SCOUT
10/26/2008, 10:42 PM
Isn't there a difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government (Saddam Hussein and the Queen) and setting up a representative government (New Iraq)?

I know people like to toss out comments that compare those fighting against us in Iraq with our revolutionaries. I tend to disagree because of the types of governments going out and the ones coming in.

In addition, those fighting against the US and coalition forces in Iraq are not fighting to save their country. They are fighting to prevent individuals from having a say in their government. That IMO is quite contradictory to the minutemen.

soonerscuba
10/26/2008, 10:53 PM
Isn't there a difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government (Saddam Hussein and the Queen) and setting up a representative government (New Iraq)?

I know people like to toss out comments that compare those fighting against us in Iraq with our revolutionaries. I tend to disagree because of the types of governments going out and the ones coming in.

In addition, those fighting against the US and coalition forces in Iraq are not fighting to save their country. They are fighting to prevent individuals from having a say in their government. That IMO is quite contradictory to the minutemen.While I do think the Insurgency/Patriot dichotomy is a false one, I don't think it's especially different than the Afghani mujahideen that developed into a deadly mistake for us. The #1 reason I see them as completely different is that at minimum the American Revolution was an organic movement, Iraq isn't.

SCOUT
10/26/2008, 11:05 PM
While I do think the Insurgency/Patriot dichotomy is a false one, I don't think it's especially different than the Afghani mujahideen that developed into a deadly mistake for us. The #1 reason I see them as completely different is that at minimum the American Revolution was an organic movement, Iraq isn't.

I guess I would ask for a clarification of who represents whom in Afghanistan before I draw any comparison. You have the Russians, Taliban, Mujahideen, and of course now the US.

Iraq wasn't organic but that is due to the fact that the rule was too severe. Comparing the founders oppression with that of Iraqi citizens isn't quite fair. I don't recall hearing that the English had mass graves of hundreds of thousands of dead. They did tax tea too much though :)

jkjsooner
10/27/2008, 09:01 AM
foreign operatives, in that zone, without a uniform can certainly be classified as terrorists, no matter who they attack

Disagree 100%. It just cheapens the term.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 09:14 AM
I doubt anyone thinks you'd feel any other way.

:rolleyes: Do you think, by definition, the people we're fighting in Iraq are terrorists?

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 09:32 AM
:rolleyes: Do you think, by definition, the people we're fighting in Iraq are terrorists?

I'm going to assume you mean non-coalition forces.

Yes, nearly all are terrorists as the majority of them are not even Iraqi. And those that are Iraqi (Sadr's people) engage in terrorist activities like killing civilians and blowing stuff up.

GrapevineSooner
10/27/2008, 09:39 AM
If they are fighting with the goal of preventing a Democratic society from becoming entrenched there, then they are terrorists in my book.

They certainly can't be considered Freedom Fighters if they're fighting for a theocratic society, now, are they?

SoonerProphet
10/27/2008, 09:40 AM
I'm going to assume you mean non-coalition forces.

Yes, nearly all are terrorists as the majority of them are not even Iraqi. And those that are Iraqi (Sadr's people) engage in terrorist activities like killing civilians and blowing stuff up.

Gotta any links supporting that claim? Let me guess, they are all Iranian or Syrian. Where do you get this stuff, Ha'aretz?

Seriously, the term terrorist is a semantic playground...anyone can use to further their cause on either side of the argument.

SoonerProphet
10/27/2008, 09:42 AM
If they are fighting with the goal of preventing a Democratic society from becoming entrenched there, then they are terrorists in my book.

They certainly can't be considered Freedom Fighters if they're fighting for a theocratic society, now, are they?

Yep, cause a "Democratic" society is the be all end all...just ask Hamas. What if they are fighting for a society free of outside intereference and a rejection of SOFA that undercuts sovereignty?