"Red Dawn" (movie) a tool to argue against the "evil-ness" of insurgency?

Got the idea for this thread from a reply I posted in the "worst movie" thread. So if you read that already, bear with me, I thought it might be an interesting discussion, and don't know if I've seen it discussed here before.

It is quite dated now as cinema, granted, but it was quite prescient 20 yrs ago as to events today.

I used the uber-patriotic Red Dawn model to argue against the vilifying of the "insurgents" (aka "defenders of their lands") to my fundie father in law. Asked him who in the film the good guys were, who the bad guys were, (setting him up, of course), then proceeded to make the analogy to those "evil insurgents" who are hiding in the hills, so to speak, fighting against us trying to liberate/occupy them. He stammered to make a distinction, but none was forthcoming.

I recommend that line of reasoning toward any my-country-right-or-wrong myopics.

Anybody else have similar (or dissimilar) ideas?

Hollywood and Vine, dontchaknow.

Iraq+3. So sad.

www.answerla.org

and it does illustrate your point rather well. I actually liked the movie, even though I thought the premise was more than a little far-fetched.

Of course, so was the premise for "V" which involved a war against a totalitarian regime here in the U.S. that has turned out slightly more prophetic than anyone could have thought. I thought it was a warning at the time--one that was more or less ignored, btw.

...but not to get into a tit-for-tat about it, I see not much difference in Iraq. Maybe the distinction is more quantity vs. quality, but the model holds, I believe.

Anyway, gonna see V tonight, I can't wait.

Though I'm looking forward to seeing this one as well.

Right. I see what you mean. And I LOVED that show. I had all the comic books, too. Fun memory, thanks!

Frighteningly prophetic in a way, wasn't it?

It's the best way I could demonstrate "tolitarianism" w/o disturbing her. At just shy of ten, she's old enough to ask me why I hate Nazis so passionately, but not old enough to read books like "Anne Frank" or see movies like "Schindler's List."

There's a HELL of a lot more in "V," politically, than I remembered; I guess I wasn't old enough to recognize it at the time.

Red Dawn is a very good movie to use.

The situation it depicts is ludicrous -- Soviets and Cubans somehow invading and occupying huge swaths of the US. But change the players, and the same patterns are happening all over the world.

There's actually a long American tradition of identifying with insurgents against invading forces. It's a good angle to use.

Nuke the cities on the coasts, invade the heartland. It could have happened.

Look at the difficulties in occupying Iraq, a country a fraction of the size of the US. The US is a very large country, more populous than the Soviet Union was, geographically isolated, whose citizens are heavily armed and resistant to any kind of authoritarianism.

Even the scenario of heavy one-sided US losses in a nuclear war is not realistic. The Soviets would have been crippled at least as badly as the US, if only from the submarine-based missiles.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think it's important NOT to give military fantasies like this any credence as realistic scenarios. They are agitprop designed to stir up hostilities.

They're many of these threats, and once you get into the details, they turn out to be ludicrous. One idea now seems to be that in a couple of decades, China will launch an amphibious assault on the US across the Pacific. (At least I've heard that possibility mentioned on the G Gordon Liddy show.) Once supposed threats like this are taken seriously by enough people, the country is halfway toward another war.

By Saruman's forces of Orcs as they attempt to decimate the Rohan insurgents in The Two Towers.

Which team seems more like the USA?

Who complains to the Soviet officer about being put in position of being the occupying oppressor.

Intercutting it with pictures of Bush, perhaps, with the idea that the movie dealt with the current conflict rather than some 80s fantasy ...

Just think of the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s. They had known ties to narcotraffickers, and used cocaine sales to prop up their operation.

Their mission was to "liberate" Nicaragua from the democratically-elected Sandanistas, who brought things like free clinics and universal primary education to the countryside.

WE are the good guys. It doesn't matter if we are the insurgents or we are fighting against the insurgents. America=good everyone else=bad

.....had a woman speechless.:toast:

It was fun. ;-)

Where do you teach?

I teach at a community college on the california central coast, one great thing about my college is that my dean is very supportive about the concept of academic freedom

...Cuesta, is it?

I love that part of my state.

its farther north than that closer to monterey

I was hoping.

But love the way you're educating our future. Thanks.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Every last one of them fought for freedom and an end to the British occupation.

some of our troops in Iraq call the insurgents "Wolverines". So they know what the deal is. I also think they had named some of their camps there after oil companies.

You see a lot of it in the parts about the gun registration and the explanation about the "war" given the context of the times. Viewing it now (I watched it this weekend) when you hear the Cuban officer bemoan how he's used to being one of the insurgency instead of the occupiers it shines a whole new light on the war on Iraq.

....arguing against the Iraq was to a neocon. I asked the person if they had ever seen the movie and stated that it was re-airing this past week end. Then I went on to point out how Americans formed a group of guerrilla fighters to expel the Russian invaders. I went on to suggest, "For me that sort of explains how the Iraqi's must feel these days." The person just looked at me for a second and then looked away but I could tell I had made an impact.:bounce: