Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know that, and you know that, and Sidd knows that. But as a Thomas Pynchon fan, I believe it's important to judge a work on my own terms without seeing it, and not on the basis of the author's life.

Fixed that.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know that, and you know that, and Sidd knows that. But as a Thomas Pynchon fan, I believe it's important to judge a work on its own terms, and not on the basis of the author's life.

I was responding to the last sentence of your post. Yes, it would be hard for Eastwood to allow for any doubt as to the heroism and nobility of even the most flawed of our veterans. Witness, as in Gran Torino, when he commits suicide by gangster. The vet will never be ambivalent in a Clint Eastwood film. Remember, this is the man who addressed an empty chair at the GOP convention.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I was responding to the last sentence of your post. Yes, it would be hard for Eastwood to allow for any doubt as to the heroism and nobility of even the most flawed of our veterans. Witness, as in Gran Torino, when he commits suicide by gangster. The vet will never be ambivalent in a Clint Eastwood film. Remember, this is the man who addressed an empty chair at the GOP convention.

It should be possible to make a movie about Iraq that depicts a heroic and noble soldier who is the victim of choices made by Americans. From what Sidd and others have said, it sounds like Eastwood didn't do that, but maybe someone will.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Of course it creates an aversion -- that's what civilization does. 100 years ago it was very normal here to hate anyone not from your "tribe," now most of us (everyone here) have a strong aversion to racism and racist thoughts. 200 years ago, it was natural to think women inferior, to beat your wife, beat your children, etc. Now, civilized people have an aversion.

With soldiers -- particularly those whose job is to kill, not to guard or lay down cover fire or whatever, and especially to kill people they can see (meaning, for example, a sniper vs a bomber pilot) -- we get them to cross that line that civilization has created. For some it's easy, they are killers -- but I suspect that those people are actually pretty shitty at the job, because they don't have to think very much before pulling the trigger. For others, it's harder, and they need to have justifications (I'm protecting my men, mine is the greatest country in the world, they are evil, etc.)

And then, we ask them to come back.

No dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that people are drawn to the jobs where they get paid to (and have permission to) do what they want. People who like to argue become lawyers. People who want to be in charge become cops. People who like computer shit go to google. People who want to kill are drawn to the military.

Obviously this isn't true of whatever-number-approaching-100%-is-correct of those joining the armed forces, but someone who has killed dozens upon dozens of people probably has a predilection for killing. We just give that guy the training and the tools to be efficient. And I firmly believe that the armed forces are constantly on the lookout for these types because we want them on that wall. We need them on that wall.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that people are drawn to the jobs where they get paid to (and have permission to) do what they want. People who like to argue become lawyers. People who want to be in charge become cops. People who like computer shit go to google. People who want to kill are drawn to the military.

Obviously this isn't true of whatever-number-approaching-100%-is-correct of those joining the armed forces, but someone who has killed dozens upon dozens of people probably has a predilection for killing. We just give that guy the training and the tools to be efficient. And I firmly believe that the armed forces are constantly on the lookout for these types because we want them on that wall. We need them on that wall.

TM

And who's going to do it, Lieutenant Weinberg? You!?!

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The thing about movies like this, or Platoon, is that it glamorizes the heroism our soldiers display and it marginalizes the human and economic cost on the other side. The people and the soldiers never see the real enemy.

I don't know if I agree with your example. I'll admit that I've never watched Platoon from start to finish, but it's because of the rape scene. I was like 16 or 17 when I saw that and I had to turn it off. Maybe the tone changes, but I didn't get any sense of heroism from what I saw.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Matt Taibbi's criticism (at least, the reduced form of it he gave there), however, was stupid -- his complaint about the movie is that it doesn't say that we invaded the wrong country. I agree that we did, but the movie wasn't about the political issues. To me, that's like criticizing Saving Private Ryan because it doesn't talk about how the Allies contributed to the war by imposing the brutal conditions of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

I'm not so sure. Taking away the context of the war completey really makes it possible to cast anyone involved from our side as a hero. It's hard to call someone a hero, even when they commit heroic acts, when they are part of a war-for-no-reason.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that people are drawn to the jobs where they get paid to (and have permission to) do what they want. People who like to argue become lawyers.

That's bullshit.

People who want to be in charge become cops. People who like computer shit go to google. People who want to kill are drawn to the military.

Obviously this isn't true of whatever-number-approaching-100%-is-correct of those joining the armed forces, but someone who has killed dozens upon dozens of people probably has a predilection for killing. We just give that guy the training and the tools to be efficient. And I firmly believe that the armed forces are constantly on the lookout for these types because we want them on that wall. We need them on that wall.

You are seeing this as yes/no -- does he have a predilection for killing or not. I see it as a spectrum, from the Buddhist who wouldn't step on an ant to the Jeffrey Dahmer.... The military is going to look to one end of that spectrum, but in today's military especially someone on the extreme end is going to be a disaster. Particularly with a sniper, in a war where the enemy isn't in uniform -- you want a guy who, on the one hand, is able to pull the trigger without remorse, but, on the other hand, can exercise judgment and patience and not pull the trigger when he shouldn't.



Is it possible that I am the only one who saw the Nightly Show episode?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The thing about movies like this, or Platoon, is that it glamorizes the heroism our soldiers display and it marginalizes the human and economic cost on the other side. The people and the soldiers never see the real enemy.

You saw a different version of Platoon than I did, I think.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

That's bullshit.

I see what you did there.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You are seeing this as yes/no -- does he have a predilection for killing or not. I see it as a spectrum, from the Buddhist who wouldn't step on an ant to the Jeffrey Dahmer.... The military is going to look to one end of that spectrum, but in today's military especially someone on the extreme end is going to be a disaster. Particularly with a sniper, in a war where the enemy isn't in uniform -- you want a guy who, on the one hand, is able to pull the trigger without remorse, but, on the other hand, can exercise judgment and patience and not pull the trigger when he shouldn't.

I have to remove this from the context of the movie or the guy the movie is based on (because I don't give a shit about either) in order to continue this conversation. But, yeah. Sure. You're right. Nothing is black or white. Surely you don't want someone who is out of control and can't be controlled in a position where they have to exercise judgment before killing people. And, yeah, there's a spectrum when it comes to absolutely every topic one could possibly discuss. Okay.

My point is, maybe guys like these aren't always turned into killing machines. Maybe guys like these want to kill, have way fewer qualms about killing someone than a normal person would, and are looking for opportunities to do so. Seems to me, the armed forces would be on the lookout for guys like that because, in my opinion, it seems like it would be easier to train someone like this how to be good with a gun than to train someone who is good with a gun how not to care about blowing people's heads off.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Is it possible that I am the only one who saw the Nightly Show episode?

Not that big a Larry Wilmore fan.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not so sure. Taking away the context of the war completey really makes it possible to cast anyone involved from our side as a hero. It's hard to call someone a hero, even when they commit heroic acts, when they are part of a war-for-no-reason.

TM

I'm not sure I agree, at least with respect to the Iraq War. I mean, I wouldn't call any Confederate soldier a "hero"* -- they were fighting on the side of evil. But while the Iraq war was stupid, counterproductive, not worth it, we never should have gone.... The people we were fighting, at least after the initial stages, were pretty evil themselves. If an American soldier gave his life to prevent the bombing of a Shiite gathering, would you say "yes, but he never should have been there so I can't say he's a hero"?

*Let me say right now that I find the whole "hero" talk pretty annoying. Hero this, hero that. It's not a word I use when not referring to sandwiches. But I'm responding in the vein of your comment.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

My point is, maybe guys like these aren't always turned into killing machines. Maybe guys like these want to kill, have way fewer qualms about killing someone than a normal person would, and are looking for opportunities to do so. Seems to me, the armed forces would be on the lookout for guys like that because, in my opinion, it seems like it would be easier to train someone like this how to be good with a gun than to train someone who is good with a gun how not to care about blowing people's heads off.

I don't think anyone could seriously decide to volunteer for the military, especially for a combat group like the Seals, unless they were at least comfortable with the notion of killing. But the guy who affirmatively wants to kill, or likes killing, I would think would be a shitty soldier (just like the lawyers who never know when to stop arguing are actually pretty crappy lawyers).

One guy on the Nightly Show was an Army sniper, apparently with some enormous number of kills. He said he had no regret over the killing -- but he also had a severe alcohol problem after returning from war. His focus was that he was saving his friends and comrades. The movie-version of Kyle was similar, the real version may have been more "and they were bad guys."

I just started reading a book I bought years ago, that is specifically about how the military trains people to be okay with killing. It's interesting, scary. Just one guy's view, of course, but his view isn't that they look for the bloodthirsty types.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm not sure I agree, at least with respect to the Iraq War. I mean, I wouldn't call any Confederate soldier a "hero"* -- they were fighting on the side of evil.

Well, that's rich. I guess it depends on your perspective and that's kind of the entire point, isn't it?

You can easily make a movie about Confederate soldiers who save their buddies from Union soldiers in situations where they are extremely outnumbered or who are the subject of awful tactics by the Union army. If you remove the whole point of the war and just show what's going on on the battlefield with no other real context then you will surely have many people watching the movie who look at the main characters as heros.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

But while the Iraq war was stupid, counterproductive, not worth it, we never should have gone.... The people we were fighting, at least after the initial stages, were pretty evil themselves. If an American soldier gave his life to prevent the bombing of a Shiite gathering, would you say "yes, but he never should have been there so I can't say he's a hero"?

Now who's turning this conversation into a yes/no proposition? Of course we were fighting some pretty evil people. But, Shirley, there were Iraqis who were involved because they wanted to take up arms against an army that had no business being in their country.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

*Let me say right now that I find the whole "hero" talk pretty annoying. Hero this, hero that. It's not a word I use when not referring to sandwiches. But I'm responding in the vein of your comment.

I am completely with you. I think, next to "literally," it's the most over- and incorrectly-used word in the English language.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't think anyone could seriously decide to volunteer for the military, especially for a combat group like the Seals, unless they were at least comfortable with the notion of killing. But the guy who affirmatively wants to kill, or likes killing, I would think would be a shitty soldier (just like the lawyers who never know when to stop arguing are actually pretty crappy lawyers).

I dunno. The real life version of people is often the bullshit version they convey because they don't want anyone anywhere near what they're actually thinking.

The best example I have is cops. Obviously I'm not talking about all cops. But the people I've known who wanted to be cops were always the ones who got pushed around a lot when they were young or who were fucking lunatics who couldn't wait to use a gun with permission. Granted, my sample size is unsupportably low (maybe 3 people), but if you asked any one of those guys why they became a cop you'd get the first of the following George Stone answers:

http://youtu.be/vz4_fb6-_F0?t=13s

And the really answer would be because they wanted to be able to bust some heads and exert some authority. And we wouldn't have a police force without these guys.

As for your lawyer example, that ain't true. There are plenty of assholes who get their way because they just never stop negotiating. I've seen attorneys give on points just to get the other side to shut the fuck up about it.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

One guy on the Nightly Show was an Army sniper, apparently with some enormous number of kills. He said he had no regret over the killing -- but he also had a severe alcohol problem after returning from war. His focus was that he was saving his friends and comrades. The movie-version of Kyle was similar, the real version may have been more "and they were bad guys."

I just started reading a book I bought years ago, that is specifically about how the military trains people to be okay with killing. It's interesting, scary. Just one guy's view, of course, but his view isn't that they look for the bloodthirsty types.

I think for the most part, you absolutely have to train people to be okay with killing, because it's so against human nature. But you can't convince me that they aren't on the look out for the guys who come in and naturally don't seem to have a problem with it.

TM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that people are drawn to the jobs where they get paid to (and have permission to) do what they want. People who like to argue become lawyers. People who want to be in charge become cops. People who like computer shit go to google. People who want to kill are drawn to the military.

Obviously this isn't true of whatever-number-approaching-100%-is-correct of those joining the armed forces, but someone who has killed dozens upon dozens of people probably has a predilection for killing. We just give that guy the training and the tools to be efficient. And I firmly believe that the armed forces are constantly on the lookout for these types because we want them on that wall. We need them on that wall.

TM

I was thinking about this the other day when the discussion first came up. My brother has more kills than my husband does. Like a gagillion Texans, my brother grew up hunting. Mainly ducks, geese and dove, but he is an excellent shot and had no problem whatsoever shooting and killing birds in the sky or snakes in the water or sick looking rodents that could be rabid. My husband grew up in urban and suburban Ohio, and he didn't start shooting until he joined the Marines during the first Gulf War. Aside from spiders and the mice he fed to his snakes, I don't think he's ever killed anything on purpose. But he was good at shooting. Though he didn't go to sniper school, had his unit gone anywhere, he would have been the guy they sent high to cover everyone if there were no other snipers around. He never had to.

I'm pretty sure that my husband wouldn't have had a problem at the time shooting and killing people to protect his unit. Not god, not country, not to defend democracy or something abstract, but the guys he went in with. He was very well trained / indoctrinated to work as a team with the people around him, and he was good at his job, which included being an excellent shot. Had he stayed in longer, I have no doubt that eventually he would have shot and killed someone and maybe even a lot of someones. And I think he would be relatively ok with it.

I think my brother would have had a major problem with it, though I guess if he had to, he could/would. He'd be a lot more messed up about it later, though, at least outwardly.

At any rate, I think my husband was a 19 year old who had no interest whatsoever in college and saw the Marines as something he could do instead. He'll tell you now that he was a horrible Marine, though I've never gotten the impression that he regrets it, and he's still immensely proud of getting through Parris Island and then being Force Recon. For someone who hates being told what to do or how to dress and is insanely stubborn, I sometimes can't believe he did it. I suspect a lot of adolescent anger, resentment, and desire to prove people wrong did a lot to drive him. I think also the adrenaline rush had a lot to do with it. He loved jumping out of planes and repelling and using zip lines and stuff like that. Plus he loved playing with the toys. I can't even count the number of times we've watched an action adventure movie where he's done whatever the people on screen are doing.

Now, he absolutely HATES the fetishization of the military, and he squirms whenever he hears the words "thank you for your service." I mentioned recently how I thought it'd be funny if he and my brother went to a gun range to compare efficiency, and he said it sounded like something that would support the NRA so he had no interest. But I still think he would not hesitate to kill someone if we were in legitimate danger.