Red Dawn

[Maren]

I noticed the movie Red Dawn on television a few days ago. For those not familiar, Red Dawn is a 20 year old movie that has a Soviet invasion of the United States where several of the local teens form a insurgent unit against the Soviets.

It made me think of Iraq, it was far too easy to draw parallels between America being invaded and Iran being invaded. So, my question is: in a Red Dawn scenario, is it good and/or ethical to act as an insurgent against invaders? And, by contrast, is it good/ethical for Iraqis to fight against the US? And if you answer the two questions differently, why?

And, for the purpose of this discussion (and why I did not put it in the Politics forum) I wish only to discuss local insurgents, not foreign groups such as al-Qaeda.

 

[uberd00b]

A good question and a consideration that many people do not think about. If a foreign army invaded your land, killed your friends and family and generally started making your life quite unpleasant who wouldn't resist?

 

[Ryal Kane]

I like to think I'd resist. But I'd certainly try to limit any lethal force and avoid civilian targets. John Marsden's Tomorrow When The War Began series covers a similar theme.

 

[Domenico]

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

If my country was invaded I would take up my bow and fight. I think it is natural and moral to fight against invaders, no matter who you are or who you fight against. On the other hand I dont believe it is moral to invade in the first place.

 

[BlueAfgani]

So, my question is: in a Red Dawn scenario, is it good and/or ethical to act as an insurgent against invaders? And, by contrast, is it good/ethical for Iraqis to fight against the US? And if you answer the two questions differently, why?

Yes and maybe. It all depends on the reasons. the reasons the kids in Red Dawn (one of my favs, btw) are ethical to fight is because they are fighting for their freedom, and the freedom of their countrymen.

Iraqs fight for a myriad of reasons. Some really see us as occupiers trying to make Iraq into a puppet state. Other are fighting for their own power, religious fanaticism, the desire to establish an Islamic caliphate, bring about the end of the world, fight the Great Satan, and a whole bunch of other unethical reasons. I believe the unethical reasons are the dominant ones because of the strategies they employ. They bomb women and children. They bomb holy sites to stir up civil war. The bomb the democratically elected government, they bomb the military and police that are trying to stabilize the area of those very people and their violence. They employ torture, the real stuff. People over there would be so lucky if the worst thing they had to worry about is waterboarding.

That's why the two are different.

If my country was invaded I would take up my bow and fight.

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes and maybe. It all depends on the reasons. the reasons the kids in Red Dawn (one of my favs, btw) are ethical to fight is because they are fighting for their freedom, and the freedom of their countrymen.

Iraqs fight for a myriad of reasons. Some really see us as occupiers trying to make Iraq into a puppet state. Other are fighting for their own power, religious fanaticism, the desire to establish an Islamic caliphate, bring about the end of the world, fight the Great Satan, and a whole bunch of other unethical reasons. I believe the unethical reasons are the dominant ones because of the strategies they employ. They bomb women and children. They bomb holy sites to stir up civil war. The bomb the democratically elected government, they bomb the military and police that are trying to stabilize the area of those very people and their violence...

I think the parallel is very accurate. Americans would also fight for reasons you labelled as unethical, such as to set up a Christian state, or to hasten the end of the World and rapture. In Vietnam many Americans had no qualms about bombing 'soft targets'; villages with women and children that were known to have been raided by Vietcong guerrillas and therefore, unwillingly, were a source of supplies.

Some Americans would also attack Russian forces working to stabilize the area by removing the last remaining 'patriots' and some would even (shock horror) attack their own countrymen helping the Russians.

 

[stumpjumper]

I remember watching Red Dawn back in the 80's. Great movie.

I think you can find a lot of parallels between that movie and what is happening in Iraq. I think there are also many points of departure as well...

 

[quatona]

I think it is natural and moral to fight against invaders, no matter who you are or who you fight against.

I have never understood how "it´s natural/unnatural" is an argument for or against a certain behaviour. I don´t even seem to understand what meaning of "natural" such statements refer to.

 

[WarEagle]

I noticed the movie Red Dawn on television a few days ago. For those not familiar, Red Dawn is a 20 year old movie that has a Soviet invasion of the United States where several of the local teens form a insurgent unit against the Soviets.

It made me think of Iraq, it was far too easy to draw parallels between America being invaded and Iran being invaded. So, my question is: in a Red Dawn scenario, is it good and/or ethical to act as an insurgent against invaders? And, by contrast, is it good/ethical for Iraqis to fight against the US? And if you answer the two questions differently, why?

And, for the purpose of this discussion (and why I did not put it in the Politics forum) I wish only to discuss local insurgents, not foreign groups such as al-Qaeda.

The two aren't even remotely the similar.

First of all, the Iraqis aren't fighting us. The insurgents we're fighting are almost exclusively terrorists from other places.

By and large, the Iraqis have been very supportive.

Second, if you recall, the Soviets in Red Dawn invaded because they wanted our resources (something about a blight on their wheat crop and an oil embargo). We went into Iraq because Saddam posed an iminent threat to us, our interests, and our allies, and because he repeatedly violated UN sanctions, as well as the ceasefire agreement that he, himself, signed.

Now, on to the question of whether or not it's morally OK to defend one's country. Yes, it is. In fact, I think the real question would be, "is it morally OK not to defend one's country".

And then, of course, there's the practical question of whether a high school kid could really take out a Soviet army patrol with a bow and arrow.

 

[igotbegot]

Do you know what the difference is between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Perspective.

 

[Verv]

I noticed the movie Red Dawn on television a few days ago. For those not familiar, Red Dawn is a 20 year old movie that has a Soviet invasion of the United States where several of the local teens form a insurgent unit against the Soviets.

It made me think of Iraq, it was far too easy to draw parallels between America being invaded and Iran being invaded. So, my question is: in a Red Dawn scenario, is it good and/or ethical to act as an insurgent against invaders? And, by contrast, is it good/ethical for Iraqis to fight against the US? And if you answer the two questions differently, why?

And, for the purpose of this discussion (and why I did not put it in the Politics forum) I wish only to discuss local insurgents, not foreign groups such as al-Qaeda.

You cannot draw comparisons simply because fo the political background of each country.

America in the sixties and seventies was not run by a Saddam Hussein-esque figure. We didn't butcher our own people and did not restrict all freedom of speech against the government.

Any glory that there is in fighting a foreign invasion is immediately snubbed out by the fact that the government they wish to have upheld was defined by tyranny and gross abuse of human rights. I can see no comparison.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Do you know what the difference is between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Perspective.

A lot of people say this and theres definitely a point to it, but it is over simplifying things.

Terrorism refers to a tactic, freedom fighting refers to a goal.

A rebel group in a country could fight against the government without being a terrorist group, though they would surely be branded as such by the administration. If they engaged in military or stealth raids on non-civilian targets then they really couldn't be considered terrorist from an objective view.

Alternatively you could be a terrorist group without necessarily working toward the idea of independent rule of your country. If for example an animal rights group starting bombing McDonalds worldwide, they would be terrorists but not freedom fighters.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Red Dawn was Americans defending America. Iraq is Syrians and Iranians blowing up Iraqis and Americans in Iraq. I don't see much of a parallel.

 

[Snowbunny]

hola,

i'm not certain anything justifies killing... whether it be dictators who are accused of building nuclear weapons, nor armies taking over your country. self defense seems like an illusion most of the time... twice we've been told our enemies have nuclear weapons they intend to use against us... twice we were wrong. fortunately we did not commit to a war with Iran.

i think Jesus taught that we are supposed to greet our enemies with compassion and not with violence in like manner.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[BlueAfgani]

i'm not certain anything justifies killing... whether it be dictators who are accused of building nuclear weapons, nor armies taking over your country. self defense seems like an illusion most of the time... twice we've been told our enemies have nuclear weapons they intend to use against us... twice we were wrong. fortunately we did not commit to a war with Iran.

You're completely wrong on all counts. There are plenty of things that justify killing. Self defence is not an illusion. If someone invades your country to oppress you, you kill them. If they come to liberate you, you help them and kill the oppressors. No one said Iraq had nukes, if they had them, we wouldn't have invaded. No one says Iran has nukes, but everyone with a brain understands that they want them.

i think Jesus taught that we are supposed to greet our enemies with compassion and not with violence in like manner.

And look what happened to him! When the Russians come, you go get crucified. I'll be scalping some folk.

 

[Snowbunny]

You're completely wrong on all counts. There are plenty of things that justify killing. Self defence is not an illusion. If someone invades your country to oppress you, you kill them. If they come to liberate you, you help them and kill the oppressors. No one said Iraq had nukes, if they had them, we wouldn't have invaded. No one says Iran has nukes, but everyone with a brain understands that they want them.

self defense was an illusion for the 19 hijackers who attacked us on 911. it remains an illusion for the terrorists who bomb market places in israel and in baghdad. it was an illusion when we went to this war in Iraq... there was in fact no threat and the ties to terrorism weren't substantial... the world is far too complicated to summarize all of human conflict into a few curt sentences... and you can't just give up on people and summarize them as all one thing or another... a person can attack you for the purpose of oppressing you but in the end if you are right then you can appeal to them on a basic human level and turn them around... this is how the Roman Empire was conquered by people they were feeding to lions. people are not born to be robots of good or bad ideas... our choices make us the people we are, and our choices can unmake us.

if somebody can inspire us to make the right choices, even after we have made the wrong ones then that is better than just killing people. if you think people have worth and are worth saving then there is no time that you should ever feel like they are a lost cause...

And look what happened to him! When the Russians come, you go get crucified. I'll be scalping some folk.

i don't believe that there is this life and then nothing else... you're right... look at Jesus, He was crucified, dead, resurrected and then ascended to Heaven.

but more importantly look at them, the people who crucified Him, look what happened to them longinus, for instance, repented and turned his life around. because of what they did to Jesus and because of what Jesus in turn showed them their lives were forever altered. i think that's more important...

que Dios te bendiga

 

[WarEagle]

...

 

[BlueAfgani]

self defense was an illusion for the 19 hijackers who attacked us on 911. it remains an illusion for the terrorists who bomb market places in israel and in baghdad. it was an illusion when we went to this war in Iraq...

Except none of those things qualifies as self-defence.

there was in fact no threat and the ties to terrorism weren't substantial... the world is far too complicated to summarize all of human conflict into a few curt sentences...

Your post is, though.

and you can't just give up on people and summarize them as all one thing or another... a person can attack you for the purpose of oppressing you but in the end if you are right then you can appeal to them on a basic human level and turn them around... this is how the Roman Empire was conquered by people they were feeding to lions.

You're talking about a fairy tale land. You gonna convince Hitler he was wrong to commit genocide and bring the world into a war that killed 50 million people? You're going to convince Stalin it was wrong to kill 20 million people and send hundreds of thousands to the gulags to work to death? Have fun with that. And the people the got fed to the lions conquered nothing but the lions appetite. One emporer had a vision he attributed to the Christian God, and made the whole empire Christian. We'ld all be Hindu right now if he had seen a guy with 4 arms. people are not born to be robots of good or bad ideas... our choices make us the people we are, and our choices can unmake us.

if somebody can inspire us to make the right choices, even after we have made the wrong ones then that is better than just killing people. if you think people have worth and are worth saving then there is no time that you should ever feel like they are a lost cause...

Sometimes they are a lost cause. Sometimes, people just need to die for the betterment of society and the world in general.

i don't believe that there is this life and then nothing else... you're right... look at Jesus, He was crucified, dead, resurrected and then ascended to Heaven.but more importantly look at them, the people who crucified Him, look what happened to them longinus, for instance, repented and turned his life around. because of what they did to Jesus and because of what Jesus in turn showed them their lives were forever altered. i think that's more important...

You're not Jesus, though. You'll just be another body for the mass grave. You think anyone that would invade us would be civil with civilians? They'ld line us up and shoot us just so they wouldn't have to feed us. Even if some soldier did feel bad for you and did something about it, they'ld just throw him in the next grave. Your death will acomplish nothing.

 

[Snowbunny]

Sometimes they are a lost cause. Sometimes, people just need to die for the betterment of society and the world in general

i don't believe that at all...

 

[Maren]

Red Dawn was Americans defending America.

True.

Iraq is Syrians and Iranians blowing up Iraqis and Americans in Iraq. I don't see much of a parallel.

False. From Major General Joseph Taluto, "There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'" "General Taluto said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis".

From another article, "Added proof that the resistance is indigenous is that of more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who the Pentagon says were captured in Fallujah - there's no independent confirmation; only 15 have been confirmed as "foreign fighters", according to General George Casey, the top US ground commander. And these "foreigners" are mostly Saudis, Jordanians or Syrians"

There have also been numerous polls that indicate a majority of Iraqis support the insurgents and that many do not see other Arabs as Foreigners (much as if Canadians came to America to fight off invaders, we would not see them as "foreigners"). Ironic that despite the claims of "foreign fighters" inside Iraq made by the US administration, many Iraqis consider the only real group of foreign fighters are the Americans.

And a reminder, we are not talking about the "foreign fighters" in this thread, regardless of the percentage, but rather the Iraqi insurgents.