Avatar

[UncannyGarlic]

As said Cameron really has a skill for characters in his movies thus why I am so surprised that in Avatar which is somewhat a 3 hours movie the characters as so obviously ... one sided.

That I agree with. The only character with development that takes place slowly over the movie is the main character. Neytiri is probably the only other character who changes over time, and hers seems to happen quickly over the three months which takes a few minutes on screen.

I could be wrong without seeing it again but if I remember correctly, the room where the evil head military guy was giving the battle speech wasn't just filled with combat personnel.

There were scientists in the back but I really don't remember seeing laborers for the corporation, though they could have been there. Regardless, the only humans who might not be either military, scientists, or the CEO guy who have lines are simply relaying information as part of their job (I'm thinking of the people in the control tower). They were hardly even present in the movie thus weren't a significant group. The movie focused on the main characters and two groups, the Na'vi and the mercenaries. It's also not likely that anyone who worked for the company were going to complain anyway, especially not in front of Papa Dragon.

So once again just because some fuckups would do that means everyone is guilty? Once again it is clear that Cameron was trying to insert a political message. I mean fuck, those mercs might as well be labled with giant letters BLACKWATER FUCKOS here.

I hardly see how participants in the milgram experiment are "fuck-ups" and I don't see why it's so hard to believe that there are people in the military and mercenaries who like to shoot things, especially when they don't have to kill "people" (not an argument for all of them but racism is a real thing and the military is hardly the best about keeping it under control, let alone mercenaries), killing them means getting a shitload of money, and it gets them out of dodge.

Just because we have scientists going out to learn about simpler cultures doesn't mean they tear off their clothes and start wearing loincloths all day. I mean yeah, there are people who want to learn more about asian cultrue. It doesn't mean they are gonna change their eyes to look like asians. I mean I am cool with black people and even have some black friends but it doesn't mean I am going to speak ebonics and color my skin black. Getting the picture here? The fight was over and that scientist guy was still in his avatar. I was like what the fuck?

Why are you surprised that he would be in his avatar (which was wearing human-like clothing I'll note) when they are forcing the people in the facility, including a lot of military personnel, to leave? It was basically his version of one of the mechs that the marines used. My problem with that scene was that it seemed like his avatar had been killed when it was shot and then was walking around without a scratch later.

Look at our history. African Americans are still blaming the white man for shit that happened way in the past. There is still animosity between most asians when speaking about the Japanese. I am sure there are quite a few Native Americans who are still miffed at caucasians. Better yet, look at the friggin middle east. You think the Palistinians are gonna just forgive and forget when Israel carpet bombs the fuck outta their cities and kill countless innocent civillians. I mean people are getting fucking carbombed and beheaded by terrorists to this day and animosity is rife. Look at Africa. How long have people been getting massacred because of "the hatfields and mccoys shit". Do you really think the Navi are going to have a forgive and forget attitude when it comes to humans because of what like, 4 of them were good??

I don't see what you're getting at, are you saying that the Na'vi should have killed all of the humans instead of sending them off? I get where you're coming from if that's what you're saying but I can see a few reasons why the wouldn't. They might have been unable to since there have have been too many humans to simply commit genocide and kill off (weak argument). They respect life too much or have a code of honor which prevents them from killing them after the battle. The simplest answer would be that it's what Jake commanded them to do and they did it since he was the boss man with the super dragon. That said, if you're suggesting that a scene showing the Na'vi's hatred of the humans and how they came to the decision that they did was missing, that's a fair complaint (though I can see why it wouldn't be there as far as dramatic movie making goes).

 

[DarkCorp]

There were scientists in the back but I really don't remember seeing laborers for the corporation, though they could have been there. Regardless, the only humans who might not be either military, scientists, or the CEO guy who have lines are simply relaying information as part of their job (I'm thinking of the people in the control tower). They were hardly even present in the movie thus weren't a significant group. The movie focused on the main characters and two groups, the Na'vi and the mercenaries. It's also not likely that anyone who worked for the company were going to complain anyway, especially not in front of Papa Dragon

It doesn't change the fact that Cameron never even bothered with the idea there might be some good people in the company. Is it so hard to believe there are such thing as GASP, a whistleblower. Someone who is secretly videotaping this shit so not all of humanity gets viewed as evil fucks. So yeah, apparently the scientists are the only ones nice enough to warn the Navi but people in the corporation who might secretly videotape the heinous decision making, impossible.

I hardly see how participants in the milgram experiment are "fuck-ups" and I don't see why it's so hard to believe that there are people in the military and mercenaries who like to shoot things, especially when they don't have to kill "people" (not an argument for all of them but racism is a real thing and the military is hardly the best about keeping it under control, let alone mercenaries), killing them means getting a shitload of money, and it gets them out of dodge.

Its totally believeable that there are some assholes out there. Keyword here is SOME. What, mercenaries can't take on high paying jobs that might actually save lives? Soldiers are not paid nearly enough for the shit they have to go through. So after they serve their term they might not want to make minimum wage with a soul sucking job and become mercenaries. Does mercenaries automatically equate to being a BlackWater asshole? Cameron sure thinks so.

As to the fuckups comment yes they are fuckups. Those guys in the Milgrim experiment were never in the military. They weren't soldiers. Those people were not in a situation where they had to choose their own lives over that of the other. They were just spineless people doing what a professor told them to do. They didn't even have the moral, ethics or even the basic self-preservation instinct to ask the question who woud be responsible for a death if it should occur.

Why are you surprised that he would be in his avatar (which was wearing human-like clothing I'll note) when they are forcing the people in the facility, including a lot of military personnel, to leave? It was basically his version of one of the mechs that the marines used. My problem with that scene was that it seemed like his avatar had been killed when it was shot and then was walking around without a scratch later

Uh the battle was over. Second, the guy had a gun. Why arn't you surprised at the idea that he didn't return to his human body once the war was over. I mean the marines do PARK their combat mech while not in battle. It was just another shamless guilt trip message stating if you want to be a good guy, you better look like one. Third, the guy wasn't even in the Navi camp, that excuse that you can only be a Navi doesn't work at a HUMAN installation. Also if it was for protection, why not use a HUMAN mech.

I don't see what you're getting at, are you saying that the Na'vi should have killed all of the humans instead of sending them off? I get where you're coming from if that's what you're saying but I can see a few reasons why the wouldn't. They might have been unable to since there have have been too many humans to simply commit genocide and kill off (weak argument). They respect life too much or have a code of honor which prevents them from killing them after the battle. The simplest answer would be that it's what Jake commanded them to do and they did it since he was the boss man with the super dragon. That said, if you're suggesting that a scene showing the Na'vi's hatred of the humans and how they came to the decision that they did was missing, that's a fair complaint (though I can see why it wouldn't be there as far as dramatic movie making goes).

I will restate my meaning since you missed it. You said that not ALL of humanity was represented. Well, from the audiences perspective and the Navi, those corporate assholes are representing humanity. Kind of like watch what you do because you might not just be representing yourself but your job, your race, your family, etc, etc. Does HAMAS make the distinction that the Israeli MILITARY bombed their kids and their wives and their husbands to oblivion? In Africa, the biggest problem is tribal vengeance. One sides does something horrible, when the victimes become the guys in charge, they take vengeance. Theres none of this forgive and forget shit. If a Hutu/Tutsi massacred a family, the survivors are not going to make the distinction who did the killing. That kind of happens when you see apppaling things happen to your people. What I am saying when the Navi see human beings, all they are going to see and remember are greedy dicks who massacred men, women, and children. I mean when you have a few hundred humans that are bad with what,4 that are good, what are they gonna think?

The second part of your message proves my point. Its the evil dick humans that will commit atrocities. But noooo, those Navi are somehow super special and good. They could never comprehend such an idea as VENGEANCE. Not even after they watched their children, their elder and countless others get massacred. Even the Native Americans (who the Navi are supposed to be compared to), weren't angels. Tribal warfare and territorial expansion was constant (when talking about resources).

As other people have stated, their was no subtlety and both sides were cardboard cutouts. This movie was clearly propaganda. I expect it from the likes of Moore and Rush Limbaugh but not Cameron.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

It doesn't change the fact that Cameron never even bothered with the idea there might be some good people in the company. Is it so hard to believe there are such thing as GASP, a whistleblower. Someone who is secretly videotaping this shit so not all of humanity gets viewed as evil fucks. So yeah, apparently the scientists are the only ones nice enough to warn the Navi but people in the corporation who might secretly videotape the heinous decision making, impossible.

Would it add to the film or merely slow it down? Could justive be done to the presentation or would they have to be simplified too much for time restraint reasons? In a time limited medium like film you have to cut content in order for the final product to work. Having some side story about a wistleblower seems like it would be a distraction that would slow down the film rather than improve it (unless, of course, the story was massively rewritten).

Its totally believeable that there are some assholes out there. Keyword here is SOME. What, mercenaries can't take on high paying jobs that might actually save lives? Soldiers are not paid nearly enough for the shit they have to go through. So after they serve their term they might not want to make minimum wage with a soul sucking job and become mercenaries. Does mercenaries automatically equate to being a BlackWater asshole? Cameron sure thinks so.

Mercenaries do what they are paid to do and are in the business because they enjoy being soldiers. It doesn't mean your evil, it just means that you enjoy the aspects of your job which just so happen to be shooting people and destroying shit (and probably some enjoy the travel and such).

As to the fuckups comment yes they are fuckups. Those guys in the Milgrim experiment were never in the military. They weren't soldiers. Those people were not in a situation where they had to choose their own lives over that of the other. They were just spineless people doing what a professor told them to do. They didn't even have the moral, ethics or even the basic self-preservation instinct to ask the question who woud be responsible for a death if it should occur.

Are you really suggesting that soldiers would be less likely to follow the orders of a commanding officer telling them to torture someone than study participants are to obey a professor telling them to torture someone? The military is all about a rigid command structure and punishing people who fail to obey commands, thus those in the service are trained to follow commands without question. Military personnel are more likely to follow an authority figure's commands than John Doe is.

Uh the battle was over. Second, the guy had a gun. Why arn't you surprised at the idea that he didn't return to his human body once the war was over. I mean the marines do PARK their combat mech while not in battle. It was just another shamless guilt trip message stating if you want to be a good guy, you better look like one. Third, the guy wasn't even in the Navi camp, that excuse that you can only be a Navi doesn't work at a HUMAN installation.

They do? Huh, I guess they were always in battle while they were standing around outside of the complex in them. Lets not make things up, he used the Avatar for most of what he had to do outside of the facility because it was better equipped for it and since they were essentially escorting prisoners, it makes sense that he'd want to be in a more powerful body which protects him from harm. Thing of it like patrols, the marines used mechs for them and he used an Avatar. Your reading way too much into nothing here. Now, if there were a bunch of scientists in Avatars then you'd have an argument since the Avatars would have materialized from nowhere and been there to send a message.

I will restate my meaning since you missed it. You said that not ALL of humanity was represented. Well, from the audiences perspective and the Navi, those corporate assholes are representing humanity. Kind of like watch what you do because you might not just be representing yourself but your job, your race, your family, etc, etc. Does HAMAS make the distinction that the Israeli MILITARY bombed their kids and their wives and their husbands to oblivion? In Africa, the biggest problem is tribal vengeance. One sides does something horrible, when the victimes become the guys in charge, they take vengeance. Theres none of this forgive and forget shit. If a Hutu/Tutsi massacred a family, the survivors are not going to make the distinction who did the killing. That kind of happens when you see apppaling things happen to your people. What I am saying when the Navi see human beings, all they are going to see and remember are greedy dicks who massacred men, women, and children. I mean when you have a few hundred humans that are bad with what,4 that are good, what are they gonna think?

From your perspective and the perspective of the Na'vi, they represent all of humanity, not to the entire audience. I'd say it represents a part of humanity (rather than all of it) in a simplified manner in order to make it easier for the audience to connect to in an AAA movie.

The second part of your message proves my point. Its the evil dick humans that will commit atrocities. But noooo, those Navi are somehow super special and good. They could never comprehend such an idea as VENGEANCE. Not even after they watched their children, their elder and countless others get massacred. Even the Native Americans (who the Navi are supposed to be compared to), weren't angels. Tribal warfare and territorial expansion was constant (when talking about resources).

I was thinking more like rules of conflict stuff, like countries have agreed upon or that is part of some cultures. It was stated by the Na'vi that they normally (or were supposed to) kill anyone who gets too close to their tree since they had a falling out with the scientists.

 

[Ah-Teen]

As to the fuckups comment yes they are fuckups. Those guys in the Milgrim experiment were never in the military. They weren't soldiers. Those people were not in a situation where they had to choose their own lives over that of the other. They were just spineless people doing what a professor told them to do. They didn't even have the moral, ethics or even the basic self-preservation instinct to ask the question who woud be responsible for a death if it should occur.

Are you really suggesting that soldiers would be less likely to follow the orders of a commanding officer telling them to torture someone than study participants are to obey a professor telling them to torture someone? The military is all about a rigid command structure and punishing people who fail to obey commands, thus those in the service are trained to follow commands without question. Military personnel are more likely to follow an authority figure's commands than John Doe is.

Lower enlisted will follow a good NCO, that they trust without question. The NCO is responsible for everyone under them, and if they're good, they should question the actions they are being ordered to do. They do argue with officers if they feel the action they're going to take is unusually dangerous or illegal.

ANY soldier obligated to refuse to take an order that is illegal. They just have to prove it or they'll be fucked to all hell.

These mercs were fuckups. No marine who got honor and valor drilled into them would do this. If they believed it was a genuine threat rather than obvious corporate thuggery, then they'd fight with all their heart. Believe it or not, the military is made of people.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I cant speak for other nations military. but I know for the Bundeswehr (German Military) the torture of people even if ordered by your comander would be seen as a crime.

And I doubt its different for US forces. Obviously as long no one knows about it no one will care and all you did was to follow orders. But as soon such things are known by the public and certain politicans (not all of them are evil) its doubtfull that nothing will happen.

Even as soldier you ARE responsible for what you do if it was some order or not. You still have a brain. Yo are a human first. A soldier later. There are things like honor and acquittal of a duty. Your job as soldier is to fight for your nation not killing inocent.

The military might love to train their people in a way that they "think" they have to follow EVERY order like robots or lemings. But thats not true. You have even as soldier a tolerance when it comes to orders. See Vietnam:

My Lai Massacre

Rescue helicopter

Intervention helicopter's crew consisted of:

• Hugh Thompson, Jr. — Warrant Officer One, helicopter pilot, confronted the ground forces personally.

• Glenn Andreotta — Specialist Four, crew chief.

• Lawrence Colburn — Specialist Four, door gunner

30 years later the crew was decorated for their actions at My Lai with Soldier's Medals, the U.S. non-combat heroism awards (Andreotta, who was killed in action over Vietnam shortly after the events at My Lai, received the medal posthumously).



or course this regarding real situations and without the background present in the movie.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

They do argue with officers if they feel the action they're going to take is unusually dangerous or illegal.

ANY soldier obligated to refuse to take an order that is illegal. They just have to prove it or they'll be fucked to all hell.

True, soldiers aren't supposed to follow illegal orders but how many actually refuse them, especially when they come from the operations commander whom they trust? I can pretty much assure you going to be a smaller percentage than the Milgram experiment. I'd argue that the pilot is supposed to represent those who don't follow illegal orders (not that there couldn't/shouldn't have been a handful more dissidents). The point is that the number of people willing the question the orders is extremely small and even smaller for mercenaries (especially if it's like the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts where they are in legal limbo, though these were supposed to be Earth marines). That all said, I can see the argument for throwing in a 30 second scene where a handful of marines who refuse to follow orders are locked up

I think that the inevitable sequels are what are really going to tell the story on how he portrays humanity. If Earth gov decides to mercilessly go after the Unobtainium then he really should show why the need it so bad (as I never even heard in the movie what made it so valuable, I read it online afterwards).

 

[Ah-Teen]

I cant speak for other nations military. but I know for the Bundeswehr (German Military) the torture of people even if ordered by your comander would be seen as a crime.

And I doubt its different for US forces. Obviously as long no one knows about it no one will care and all you did was to follow orders. But as soon such things are known by the public and certain politicans (not all of them are evil) its doubtfull that nothing will happen.

Even as soldier you ARE responsible for what you do if it was some order or not. You still have a brain. Yo are a human first. A soldier later. There are things like honor and acquittal of a duty. Your job as soldier is to fight for your nation not killing inocent.

The military might love to train their people in a way that they "think" they have to follow EVERY order like robots or lemings. But thats not true. You have even as soldier a tolerance when it comes to orders.

It's the same in every country in the UN. No, you ignorant twat, robots and lemmings make very poor soldiers. But thats usually a problem with European armies who are far more apt to follow orders without question.

Soldiers who think for themselves are good at adapting when the situation changes. Something Europeans armies have trouble with.

However soldiers do things that are illegal. They're motivated to win by any means necessary and any means at their disposal because, to them, the United States is at risk.

The My Lai massacre occurred under similar circumstances, spured on by a bigot.

Avatar the marines are apparently getting killed and maimed, fighting for some company who doesn't give a shit about them against an enemy that is obviously no threat to them if they were left alone.

They would be unmotivated to do much of anything much less go there, smash their homes and kill them.

Milgram's experiment is based on people who volunteered thinking they were aiding in an experiment.

How many more would stop much earlier if they were forced to participate in the experiment?


It's my job to explain to soldiers why they are doing what they are doing so that they can adapt to a changing battlefield. It's my job to explain to them how what they're doing is the right thing so that they DON"T argue with orders.

The situation in avatar would be a complete night mare for PA.

 

[maximaz]

Finally saw it today at 3D IMAX (completely sold out, by the way) I've never seen a movie in 3D before so it was a pretty wild experience for me.

I caught myself not paying ANY attention for the first 15 minutes, just staring at the screen with a weird unnatural grin on my face. I don't know why but I honestly retained that involuntary smile for the first 40 mins or so.

The effects were obviously amazing. I'm talking both 3D and CGI effects. I felt like this movie was on a completely new level.

The plot was not bad but it wasn't exactly great. It was cheesy at times but it worked for the kind of movie this is: a shiny and fun ride. I wasn't really into it after the initial wow wore off (which took awhile) and I was done with the movie about an hour before it ended but it worked.

I agree that the characters were pretty one-dimensional but I loved -and I may be alone in this- the main "villain" of the movie, the guy with the scars on his face. I just found him really entertaining to watch, whatever he was doing.

Also, some people seem not to realize that those were not human forces or the US Army; the military men were all mercenaries hired by the corporation(s) that were after the Unobtanium (funny name).

 

[Crni Vuk]

No, you ignorant twat, robots and lemmings make very poor soldiers. But thats usually a problem with European armies who are far more apt to follow orders without question.

why are you callikng me a twat D: !

*Edit
You cant tell me training in the military (regardless which one) set much focus on "thinking" soldiers. They are usualy very glad about soldiers that follow every order without question (even in the German military). Thats what the training is trying to do and let them act very fast without the need to start question everything or you loose much time. They didnt wanted to get soldiers that start to question why they should start to shoot on other Germans in the cold war while the Berlin wall was still in place. In case of war Germans would have been forced to shoot on Germans. And there have been a lot that questioned this situation mainly cause many that have seen training have been civilians in their life. Not professional soldiers (Germany has still compulsory military service)

The difference is shown in culture and societiy. Its more likely that a person grown up in either the US, Europe or other states with "somewhat" save societiy and ehtic/moral education in school to question a order around killing inocent compared to someone who did nothing else then killing Tutsi, Uganda or Russian soldiers since he was 12 (or younger ...). That doesnt mean the military would in general support such behaviour.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Avatar the marines are apparently getting killed and maimed, fighting for some company who doesn't give a shit about them against an enemy that is obviously no threat to them if they were left alone.
...
The situation in avatar would be a complete night mare for PA.

It really depends on who's paying them, if it's the government and they aren't getting paid extra then you may be right. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some of the soldiers would be interested in revenge and getting out of there as quickly as possible (ending the conflict by any means) after being killed and maimed by a foe they could easily decimate. I do think a lot of it ultimately comes down to who's paying them but again, given that they were marines it wouldn't have been unreasonable for there to be more people with the pilot's attitude, it just wouldn't be a significant portion of the troops.

EDIT: The real problem might be the attitude of the troops. If they were marines one wouldn't think that they would be super as happy and excited about killing the Na'vi as they were. They should have at least had more contrast within the units as doing what one is ordered to and being eager about doing what one is ordered to, especially when that means killing off a bunch of primitive natives, are two seperate things. Their attitude was more uniformly sociopathic than it should have been.

 

[welsh]

Haven't seen it yet, and probably won't as I am hoping to see it in a 3-D theater. Its not that I am turned on by this film, but if I am going to shell out a lot of money for a movie, it better be spectacular or I would rather rent the video. Its that simple- too much shit being made and going to the movies has gotten too damn expensive.

That said, I am a bit surprised about some of the reception of this film. I admit to me this looked like War Hammer 4000 meets Blue Furries, and I was worried that there's be a lot of Furry masturbators in the theater.

I also liked Cameron's Aliens and Terminator films and I think The Abyss was great. Titannic- hey, there hasn't been a good Titannic movie since A Night to Remember, Kate Winslet has nice tits, DeCaprio could be better, but the only thing I really didn't like was Celine Dion.

Ok, so some thoughts-

This movie is a comic book. You guys are asking for developed characters? Forget it. This is John Carter of Mars- old style pulp sci-fi. You are looking for deep meaningful characters, you are watching the wrong kind of sci fi.

As for the film being political- duh, that was obvious and has been obvious in all Cameron's movies. Terminator is an anti-war movie, so is Terminator 2. Aliens is another film about corporate greed (remember Burke?). The Abyss certainly depicts different sides of human nature (with M. Biehn going nuts as a Seal with a bad case of nitrogen neurosis and trying to nuke the aliens because he sees them as a threat). Titannic- remember, Cameron reminds us that most of the rich got off on lifeboats that were often mostly empty while the poor got locked into the lower decks as the boat sank.

That Cameron's message is a cautionary note about coporate greed and imperialism- yes, from what I have heard that was the intended message. That most of the humans in the film are bad guys- well, they are part of a corporate plan to take over a country. Historically, armed corporations have done similar nasty things to civilizations all over the world. This isn't just Blackwater mercs either. You can look at the East India Companies, or other early corporations that were resource extractors and did so from the barrel of a gun. Nasty people. If the history bums you out, well, tough luck.

To be honest, I think that takes a bit of guts to make such a movie now. There are lots of folks that are pissed off that the Republicans lost the election. There are a lot of folk that don't really want to think carefully about the War in Iraq. Same shit happened after Vietnam- we didn't talk about it until late 1980s. Note how almost every Iraq war film goes down in flames.

That he might have a bone to pick with imperialism- so what? Are you making a profit from imperialism? If you are hired by a corporation to kill people because the corporation wants those people's property- well aren't you a murder and a thief? Doesn't that make you pretty fucking evil?

Ok, so there are a lot of Americans who buy the patriotism and the War on Terror rhetoric that got us to Iraq (despite there being no connection to 9/11). Dudes, we could have intervened in Iraq (with oil) or Liberia (with a real bad dictator)- we went with the oil- what do you think that was about? There are a lot of Americans who don't really mind imperialism and calling it patriotism. Of course, there are a few Americans who got really fucking rich on US imperialism while lots of people suffered. The US has a long history of imperialism that we, as Americans, like to ignore. Then again, ever since the US has been a world power, there are those Americans who opposed US imperialism (even back in the days of the US capture of the Philippines or even the Mexican War). Its a complex society with mixed motives (and I am one of those who supported the
War in Iraq).

I think Cameron likes to do action films but I don't think his political views have serious changed. Has he gone far off? Don't know, haven't seen the film.

Me, I am going for the spectacle and not the story. I dig 3-D flicks.

 

[Ah-Teen]

No, you ignorant twat, robots and lemmings make very poor soldiers. But thats usually a problem with European armies who are far more apt to follow orders without question.

why are you callikng me a twat D: !

*Edit
You cant tell me training in the military (regardless which one) set much focus on "thinking" soldiers. They are usualy very glad about soldiers that follow every order without question (even in the German military). Thats what the training is trying to do and let them act very fast without the need to start question everything or you loose much time. They didnt wanted to get soldiers that start to question why they should start to shoot on other Germans in the cold war while the Berlin wall was still in place. In case of war Germans would have been forced to shoot on Germans. And there have been a lot that questioned this situation mainly cause many that have seen training have been civilians in their life. Not professional soldiers (Germany has still compulsory military service)

"You cant tell me training in the military (regardless which one) set much focus on "thinking" soldiers. They are usualy very glad about soldiers that follow every order without question (even in the German military). Thats what the training is trying to do and let them act very fast without the need to start question everything or you loose much time."

That's why...

Ever been through basic training? European or American?

I have.... And I understand why it's done the way it's done.

The speed, the yelling, screaming and giving absurd time limits. It's there to desensitize the recruits to the noise and speed of combat. Constant disciplining of the entire platoon for any individual's offense builds a team mentality. If any individual fucks up, you've all fucked up; don't let your buddy fuck up or you will be fucked up. Disobedance is dealt with depending on severity. Someone honestly doing something stupid usually gets them smoked or yelled at. Actual disobedience without reason gets rank and pay taken away though article 15. But something like not jumping down a tower because you're afraid of heights or falling, generally gets a lot of convincing before the DS finally saying its ok and sending you back down. I blatantly disobeyed and to my DS face I told him what I did and why, because I thought I might get injured. He basically said you're an idiot, you don't get the nice thing the rest of the platoon gets. (Irony is I broke my hand shortly there after.)

Hell, I only really got yelled at three times and never got seriously disciplined.

Now when it comes to shooting, they teach us, point, look, off safe, pull trigger, on safe, low ready. The look part entails we take the time to see who we're shooting and wonder if they're armed, surrendering, or non-combatant. Hardly shoot before you realize it a human.

They force us to stop and think before we do something stupid that might get our buddies killed or in trouble. The drill that into us as we walk down IED lanes. They Drill into us questioning our environment, questioning the actions of people around us, look for out of place things.

Robots will simply charge in and die. Because they didn't understand the purpose of their mission, because all they knew were the orders.

The mentality of American soldiers has always had a different mentality. They've always been difficult to control or unmotivated unless they are informed with not only the what, but also the why. As a journalist in the guard it's my job to motivate soldiers to do their job AND to explain why their doing it so that, if they see a way to achieve a goal better, they can. We are an NCO driven military, not an officer driven military.

Iraq, before we invaded was an officer driven military. The way wars were fought in the 1800s(a carry over from the era of the Greek of phalanxes and Roman armies) was an officer driven military. Today we no longer send hundreds of soldiers against hundreds of soldiers facing each other in neat rows.

That is where the myth of absolute adherence orders comes from. Back then they had to force soldiers to fight each other in tight organized patterns. Because, if they broke ranks they would fail as a force.

While that doctrine followed Europeans to the Americas the will to use it didn't. We have the myth of the hiding minute man in the brush sniping off British officers in an attempt to disrupt the ranks.

The difference is shown in culture and societiy. Its more likely that a person grown up in either the US, Europe or other states with "somewhat" save societiy and ehtic/moral education in school to question a order around killing inocent compared to someone who did nothing else then killing Tutsi, Uganda or Russian soldiers since he was 12 (or younger ...). That doesnt mean the military would in general support such behaviour.

Ethic/moral education in school... except morality is not taught in school nor is it possible to teach it there. Morality is experienced in the family. It is instinctual. It's also drilled into soldiers in training, however the length of time is woefully short without individual desire to keep the moral code.

Ethics is a different story. Ethics must be taught. Ethics in intellectual. Related, but ethics is driven by reason, morality is simply what you've learned what's right.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Ever been through basic training? European or American?

I have.... And I understand why it's done the way it's done.

Ive never experienced any real training in the military. But I wanted to be a professional soldier in the German military and tried it before I had to go in hospital cause of a accident which made it more or less impossible to ever get in the military. So I tried to get many informations about it and I am actualy a pro-military person. Thus why I think that even with orders in place EVERY soldier is ALWAYS responsible for his actions. Regardles if this action involve the killing of his whole squad or a situation where he has to prevent his team members from killing inocent people.

I know why the military is doing the things the way they do and I see that usefull for war. But fact is as well that regardles about which military we are talking about the chance to cover-up actions like crimes comieted by soldiers is very high particuilarly if it was carried out like a order from some high ranking officer. It doesnt mean that it happens on a daily basis or that there are no mechanisms in place to prevent such things. But reality simply shows that if there is not a strong observation in place and a general critical commentatorship by civlian reporters regarding military operations things can easily went out of control.

Ethic/moral education in school... except morality is not taught in school nor is it possible to teach it there. Morality is experienced in the family. It is instinctual. It's also drilled into soldiers in training, however the length of time is woefully short without individual desire to keep the moral code.

Ethics is a different story. Ethics must be taught. Ethics in intellectual. Related, but ethics is driven by reason, morality is simply what you've learned what's right.

To a certain degree yes. But part of the education is done by school as well. Either with history, religion or social classes. Its a rather large field thus hard to give a single example. I am more talking about the school as whole, teachers, other students, internet, radio, TV and the chance to get in touch with all the people. This all together has a higher chance to make some person more aware when it comes to such a sensible topic compared to someome who has never ever experienced any kind of education except how to hold and shoot a AK-47. Thats all I am saying. You know we have a chance to start a discussion or have our own oppinion regarding a topic and we dont see a need to solve every dissagrement with a bullet while others particularly in nations with very low levels of education see this as a viable alternative.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Ever been through basic training? European or American?

I have.... And I understand why it's done the way it's done.

Ive never experienced any real training in the military. But I wanted to be a professional soldier in the German military and tried it before I had to go in hospital cause of a accident which made it more or less impossible to ever get in the military. So I tried to get many informations about it and I am actualy a pro-military person. Thus why I think that even with orders in place EVERY soldier is ALWAYS responsible for his actions. Regardles if this action involve the killing of his whole squad or a situation where he has to prevent his team members from killing inocent people.

Every soldier is responsible for their actions. That was determined after ww2. They kill people that don't need to be killed, that is on them.

Dropping a bomb on non-combatants to get some combatants isn't illegal believe it or not. You accidentally shoot their body shield it's not your fault. It's theirs and they put non-combatants into harms way. I can't say this for 100% sure but I believe THAT is illegal.

Now shooting the mother fucker who did that after you dig through the rubble and find him alive. Now that is a crime.

It's great if you're fighting two countries. Not so good if your fighting a guerrilla war where the enemy doesn't care about the lives of civilians.

I know why the military is doing the things the way they do and I see that usefull for war. But fact is as well that regardles about which military we are talking about the chance to cover-up actions like crimes comieted by soldiers is very high particuilarly if it was carried out like a order from some high ranking officer. It doesnt mean that it happens on a daily basis or that there are no mechanisms in place to prevent such things. But reality simply shows that if there is not a strong observation in place and a general critical commentatorship by civlian reporters regarding military operations things can easily went out of control.

Well now your starting to get into my job. That whole "covering up" bullshit is my perview. Since... I can go to jail if I intentionally release false information. I will go to Fort Leavenworth, the military's prison if I give out something false. The entire military public affairs will do all they can to throw me under the bus and clear their name.

Because I will have corrupted the integrity, not of myself but of the entire army.

It's my job to do damage control on our fuck ups. The way we were taught to do it was to release as fast as possible as much as possible. Sometimes frightened officers who don't trust the media order us not to release, which looks bad. It's also my job to convince them not to do that.

Abu Ghraib? We released six months before it ever hit the press. And it only was taken up by the civilian media when photographs showed up. Once that happened the media took all the credit they could get their grubby hands on.

As a military journalist it's not my job to be the military's watch dog. However it is my job as a public affairs specialist to help facilitate the civilian media in their role as watch dog. I'm the one they go to to get
information from the freedom of information act. Once I get my clearance I'm also the one who censors out operation security and national security. I'm the one they go to when they want to embed with us or when they want to do a story on us.

Just me, I'd keep an eye on the civilian media more than the military. The media has the population in the palm of it's hand.

Ethic/moral education in school... except morality is not taught in school nor is it possible to teach it there. Morality is experienced in the family. It is instinctual. It's also drilled into soldiers in training, however the length of time is woefully short without individual desire to keep the moral code.

Ethics is a different story. Ethics must be taught. Ethics in intellectual. Related, but ethics is driven by reason, morality is simply what you've learned what's right.

To a certain degree yes. But part of the education is done by school as well. Either with history, religion or social classes. Its a rather large field thus hard to give a single example. I am more talking about the school as whole, teachers, other students, internet, radio, TV and the chance to get in touch with all the people. This all together has a higher chance to make some person more aware when it comes to such a sensible topic compared to someome who has never ever experienced any kind of education except how to hold and shoot a AK-47. Thats all I am saying. You know we have a chance to start a discussion or have our own oppinion regarding a topic and we dont see a need to solve every dissagrement with a bullet while others particularly in nations with very low levels of education see this as a viable alternative.

Ok, I see where you gong with that. But low levels of education is also a product of motivation. For example: The American school system is just fine, but the students just don't care(spoiled titty suckers).

James Cameron has this tenancy to show the military as uneducated grunts. While that is somewhat true, the current US military is spending millions(~) on education for the soldiers. Gone are the days when a high school dropout can just enlist and get a job. 15% of our enlistment comes from GED. Beyond that we do our best to give soldiers opportunity to take collage courses. We get promotion points for it. Educated soldiers have a better understanding of the world around them, making them more able to complete the task at hand.

I'm going to school free of charge so long as I get a c or better in all classes. I will have that until I leave the military and I intend to soak it for everything I can.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...

well if youre working in that field then you have a lot more knowledge and insight then I do.

All the options I have is to read about history, compare the informations I have access to and form my oppinoin on it. I try to be unbiased and usualy I am ready to give the military the benefit of the doubt. But since the structure in any military complex is extremly centralized it is just inherently prone to violation.

As I said there are regarding military usualy institutions in charge that have to take care about violation and error.

But its simply history that tells me that cover ups and military many times enough go very easily hand in hand. Iran–Contra affair, French Colonies British actions in arabia/asia to just name a few from the many. I think the German military has seen here probably much less but that only cause they did not had the chance to do it in the last 50 years. If they would not face the uniquie political preasure which is still present cause of the second World War they would be just as bad like either the French, British or US forces.

Military reporters probably have a extremly though job in my eyes and I have respect regarding your work:

Well now your starting to get into my job. That whole "covering up" bullshit is my perview. Since... I can go to jail if I intentionally release false information. I will go to Fort Leavenworth, the military's prison if I give out something false. The entire military public affairs will do all they can to throw me under the bus and clear their name.

Because I will have corrupted the integrity, not of myself but of the entire army.

But I am curious to see how many would follow the usual procedure when they have to face the preasure of very powerfull military officers. Vietnam (sorry that its the US again but its sadly the most prominent example ... I guess its really not different in Europe) has shown how limited the news coverage can be particulary when its regarding battles and the moral of the troops. Propaganda is even today still present. The things we get told here about German Soldiers in Afganistan many times enough are different to what soldiers tell about reality. A good friend who was partrooper told me about it and that he loost a comrade in Afganistan. The morale is in general not all to good since they have not enough troops, are not well equipped and protection of the camps is inadequate. This is never shown around here though. I cant know it but I think it has somewhat to do with restrictions by the military regarding their reporters. If there is a restrictred area where recording isnt allowed or simply some high ranking officers tells you to stop what can you do against that ? Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Not just only true for military.

But I probably see it very much like Kennedy or the warnings regarding the military by Eisenhower.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

The US definetly is not alone when it comes to secrecy and questionable motivations though as Europe is facing enough issues with the stay-behind armies as source for much controversy which are a relict from cold war. There are speculations that those forces have seen actions in neutral states even inside European NATO states.

The news coverage between military and civlians is a interrelation. Without war reporters there would be no footage directly from combat but without people like Anna Stepanowna Politkowskaja which sadly died or DR. Daniel Ganser there would be also no critical reporting as they are simply not members of the military complex. This is not meant against you or your work but I just think its very hard almost impossible to be unbiased or critical in general while working for the military I am biased toward military as well for example. Doesnt mean that its wrong. But its just natural you probably will not work for example in a nuclear plant if youre a enemy of nuclear energy for example. And its similar for military and their personal. Both sides of the argumentation are extremes but needed. No force or organisation would on purpose allow it to be shown in a negative manner. Hence why movies like Top Gun or Windtalker get access to military equipment directly sponsored by the Pentagon while movies like Apocaplyse now that has a very negative effect on military not.

Dropping a bomb on non-combatants to get some combatants isn't illegal believe it or not. You accidentally shoot their body shield it's not your fault. It's theirs and they put non-combatants into harms way. I can't say this for 100% sure but I believe THAT is illegal.

We Germans would dissagree with you:
U.S.-German rift over Afghan deaths case

War is not a clean buisness hands down and you cant always avoid civlian casualties. But there are limitations that for sure. What we are talking about here I think are not operations where you cant avoid collateral damage. What I am thinking about is the intentional killing of civlians or innocent people. Wrong decision which lead to unnecesary casualties, executions, torture etc. etc. A soon one would start to see only results, statistics and numbers regarding operations it is a wrong direction. And it shows that they have no success with that. You cant reach people that way.

It is also interesting to see here a slow change from NATO tactics that seem to spare civlian lifes in a combat situation rather then just simply attack. This kind of kill first ask later behaviour didnt proved to be succesfull in Vietnam. They have not been succesfull for the Red Army in Afganistan, and it didnt proved to be succesfull for the NATO forces.

As a Serbian who has spend much time in former Yugoslavia and seen education in Germany I have some experience when it comes to cases where you have forces fighting that you can not clearly differ from each other. I am very glad at the moment that ther are foreign troops present in the Kosovo region that somewhat keep the peace as the unilateralism by Serbian politicans has done nothing but harm in the last 30 years. Though most Serbians dont want to realise that sadly.

Ok, I see where you gong with that. But low levels of education is also a product of motivation. For example: The American school system is just fine, but the students just don't care(spoiled titty suckers).

I seriously, seriously SERIOUSLY ( ) doubt that this is the case everywhere. Frankly I never been to Africa and it is a complicated situation and I guess one could open a topic only about Africa since many of its issues can be either directly or indicretly traced back to the european occupation and colonisation. But still I think to claim those people are unmotivated regarding education is like claiming either Russians or Germans simply never cared enough to remove their regimes and establish a democratic system.

 

[Tagaziel]

Finally got around to seeing Avatar and it's currently the best 2009 movie, followed by District 9. I *love* sci-fi, even more so when it's done in a serious, thought provoking way.

I need to watch it again.

Also, people who didn't see the movie don't get to have an opinion on it. Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Yeah we do. People on the street talking about it are annoying, and the mass amount of people walking out of the theaters looking like they've just been lobotomized and been feed heroin makes me not want to see it.

 

[Tagaziel]

NYet your opinion is irrelevant, because you don't know the movie and the reason behind the junkie-like look of the spectators.

If you've been given an overdose of awesome, you'd look like a junkie too.

 

[Crni Vuk]

why dont you just admit my tiger friend that you simply love blue furry cat asses

 

[OakTable]

NYet your opinion is irrelevant, because you don't know the movie and the reason behind the junkie-like look of the spectators.

If you've been given an overdose of awesome, you'd look like a junkie too.

More like an overdose of stupid anti-Imperialism bullshit. I for one love Imperialism.