Preparation can be Costly

How costly can preparation (or the lack thereof) be? If there is one thing America has taught me through war, is that being prepared for it can save many lives, and lacking preparation can lead to the death of many. Lets portray American Sniper for example, it depicts a unique situation, one in which they are at "war" in order to prevent a war. Ironic isn't it? but it's just as real as it is ironic. Chris Kyle has over 160 credited kills to his name, these are all people that could have "potentially" lead to a severe war and/or death of many people. Kyle is seen as a hero, but in reality also viewed as the bad guy, after all, who are we to decide whether or not someone will choose to do something catastrophic until it does happen?
Morever, we have a situation in which we are doing everything we can, to be prepared for potential threats following the 9/11 attack that we didn't have a clue would happen. Now take Saving Private Ryan, a very distinct film that has a purpose within the purpose. One that, although is supposed to be about saving a Private in the midst of war, conveys how difficult it was to obtain victory during WW2 after the conquering of much of Western Europe by the Nazi Germany reign and the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese Navy. Here we have a situation in which the lack of preparation caused us many lives. These two events and many like it, have shaped the way we think and take threats now. We have to make a choice on "potential threats" as Shelly Kagan states in Intending Harm, we either choose to kill one/a few in order to save two/a multitude, or we run the risk of that person killing many before facing justice.
Being in the position of the military, what exactly are you supposed to do? Do you go on a killing spree of these "potential" threats, or do you sit back and wait for a drastic tragedy to happen? One could argue that America wouldn't be in this position in the first place if they would just stay out of other countries; then again, had America stayed out of the way during the first two world wars, they would not only have ran the risk of being conquered as well, but they would have simply sat back as the holocaust was occurring and dictatorship engulfed the world.
Many believe wars and armies shouldn't exist in the first place, I can partially agree with those bold statements, there shouldn't be a need for either to exist, but the truth is, there is evil all over the world, and power being handed down to one person or one group of people can be heavily dangerous, thus leading to a need for systems of self-defense. America began with the Militia, whom along with all the other brave people who stepped up are responsible for our independence. Evil actions have forced the world to create armies and self-defense systems. American Sniper depicts both a hero yet somehow a bad guy, similar to a vigilante, it shows the way America now prepares for future events, safety at the cost of lives. Saving Private Ryan depicts what the consequences were for the lack of preparation, victory at the cost of lives. We end up with two unfair options, Safety and preparation first at the cost of lives or lives at the cost of the lack of safety and preparation.

War, What is it Good for?

War and fighting is a fundamental part of being a human. Even from the beginning times man fought to see whose strength and abilities would determine the victor, leader, king, ruler. But as time has progressed we have seen a shift in the way war is fought. Instead of skill in combat in close quarters, we see battles being fought from much greater distances.

Team America: World Police, was directed by Trey Parker who is the co-creator of the TV series South Park. This should come to no surprise as the absolute disregard for the potential of backlash. Team America does a good job in representing the ideals that many, not all, Americans believe. When i use the term "American" if am referring to the citizens of the United States of America. This is a misuse of the word that many of us use and is shown over the top in the song that plays called, "America, Fuck Yeah". The United States is not The whole two continents of the Americans. the film depicts this by telling where the areas visited are by their relationship to the "real America".

The war that is fought in Team America is one that everybody can relate to more closely than others if they are young. The war on terrorism is an ongoing conflict that the United States tries to face. With the bombing of the twin towers in our time we have a more personal connection with this war that is being fought. Shelly Kagan talks about how war is justified if the damage that is cause is less than what the evil would've cause had it not been stopped. (332) To put this into perspective, in Team America, the Eiffel tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Great Pyramids, and the Sphinx are all destroyed in order to stop a couple people with bombs. This is taking the situation way out of proportion and exaggerating it, but it does bring fourth something that needs to be seen.

The United States causes immense economic destruction and physical destruction when they try to help a country or capture a couple of terrorists. Terrorist that are always thought of to be either Arabian or Muslim because of recent events that have occurred, as seen in the movie as well. Much of the fighting that occurs which the United States is a part of, is not our fight at all. We as the "Greatest Country Ever" (which we are far from) feels that it is our obligation to help all the other countries of the world who are struggling through military conflicts, when we have our own problems at home that we decided to continue to sweep under the rug. The dominant military force that we do have has made our boarders safe with the possibility of invasion not being an option. This is also the reason that we find it to be our obligation to "help" the other countries in times of trouble as we see it.

One of the best parts of the film for me was the bar scene which a quote that is actually very deep came into the movie. The quote is:
          "There are three kinds of people: Dicks, Pussies, and Assholes. Pussies think we everyone can
          get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through, but then you got
          your assholes. All the assholes want to do is shit all over everything. So pussies get mad at
          dicks once in awhile because pussies get fucked by dicks, but dicks also fuck assholes and if
          they didn't fuck the assholes, you'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit."
This may sound like an absolute stupid quote, but it actually describes the United States to a T. We are the Dicks, Pussies, and the Assholes all at once depending on what angle your look at us. We do care to much about other countries and we try to help all the time, but in the process we turn into Assholes and try to change the country to be more "Americanized" this brings out the rebels. They think they are the Dicks and we are the Assholes, while we think they are the Assholes and we are the dicks, when in actuality they are correct.

Something to leave you with and think about.

#TeamAmerica

War is something that has plagued mankind since it's begin years. Wars have caused some of the greatest civilizations known to man to end tragically. Most people believe waging battle or causing a war with another country is pointless and harmful to both parties in the end, but the key word is most. The United States of America is one the greatest examples of a country that uses war for self gain without regard to other people. The movies Team America and American Sniper both translate this ideal effectively. In the movie Team America, a U.S formed tasked forces performs the job of being a global police. The plot of the film is that a heroic U.S team saves the world from a global terrorist. The other film, American Sniper, also provides a similar viewpoint of U.S citizens being heroic beings in our global community. Both films point at the idea of Americans participating in war, and that when they are in war, they're doing the right thing. Immanuel Kant said,in Groundwork for The Metaphysics of Morals, "What we really intend is rather that its opposite should remain a law generally; we only take the liberty of making an exception to it, for ourselves or to satisfy our inclination." The quote makes me think more about more why the U.S has participated in some wars and what they gained from that participation. One war in particular that I would like to bring into light is the War in Iran. While it might seem that the U.S. is helping a country in need, I think one real reason is that the U.S. was trying to destroy a governmental unrest and create a governmental ally in Iraq. They participated in war for self-gain, not for helping people. I think the U.S lives on the ideals of this quote : "God Bless America, and no place else"

What do you all think?

War is a Drug

The distinct contrast between the views of soldiers and the views of civilians fuel the disconnect between them. Soldiers operate under a condition with a few principles.

They have a job. Their job is to protect their men at all cost. The lives of their men is worth more than the lives of their combatants. They are fighting to sustain the strength and ideals of America, because they strongly believe that the United States is worth suffering and dying for.

These principles are heavily loaded, and often lead to expressions of outrage while they are doing daily civilian tasks, such as going to the mall or shopping in a grocery store. The soldiers in American Sniper and The Hurt Locker become frustrated while they are not on tour, because they know there are American men dying in war at that very moment.

Chris Kyle, famous American sniper, and Sergeant William James, leading IED technician and bomb defuser, have entirely bought into the beliefs of the military and support them in their entirety as a result. Soldiers are almost forced to accept the principles of military life in order to psychologically survive the war and the horrendous acts against humanity they are ordered to commit. However, as Dr. J pointed out in class, defending the ethical decisions and morality of military acts from the stance of the ends justify the means is a dangerous way of approaching moral and ethical dilemmas. As Nagel wrote in “War and Massacre,” “In the present war such measures [the deliberate killing of the harmless: civilians, prisoners of war, and medical personnel.] are sometimes said to be regrettable, but they are generally defended by reference to military necessity and the importance of the long-term consequences of success or failure in the war.” Although, the military is a necessity to our American way of life and military men deserve both honor and praise for their sacrifices and contributions to our country, this does not negate the need for ethical criticism when evaluating our military practices as a whole.

As civilians, we harbor the rights of U.S. citizens without having to experience the cost of protecting those rights first hand. For this reason, I am grateful for the military members and their sacrifices. American Sniper and The Hurt Locker highlight the way that the excitement and socialization of war is so intense that it is difficult for military men and women to acclimate back to civilian life. Immoral acts are nearly always a derivative of selfish behavior. The acts of individuals in the military should be judged on whether or not they are ethical, based on their reasons for committing them. If they commit acts with the intention of protecting their own men and women, their acts, depending on the severity and philosophical viewpoint, can be argued as permissible. On the other hand, if their acts are a result of their lust for the excitement of war, then their acts are of a selfish derivative, in which they expended the suffering of others for their own superficial gain.

Team Chris Kyle for America

Team America, the movie with puppets and was a joking war movie.  In the first couple minutes, the movie really represents the problem with war when Americans invade, in my opinion.  We go into a country balls-a-blazin' straight for the enemy, not considering what the cost is for the people whose land we are intruding on.  I.e. In Team America, they blew up the Eiffel Tower and this huge building, costing many lives, just to say that they "got the bad guys". In my personal interpretation  I felt as if them blowing that up was to illustrate how we don't really respect the damage we can possibly do as long as we neutralize the target, mission accomplished.  Likewise, Chris Kyle, who killed around 160 people as a Navy Seal, to protect his homeland, our homeland, from the terrorists and people who "potentially" want to harm America.  In American Sniper, Chris after his first kill lost his sense of who he is, the people he killed became almost target practice with little moral repercussions. Intending Harm, by Shelly Kagan helps us relate Chris Kyle’s actions by “if I kill the one to save the two, the death of the one- although intrinsically evil- is on the balance of a good”. Chris Kyle killed all of those civilians/terrorists/humans for the safety of his fellow marines.  Even though his kill count was around 160, he aided in the saving of hundreds of marines, some he saved more than once. 
Just War theory, allows death in war to be called as morally acceptable as long as certain specifications are met. One main aspect that could be potentially be seen as violated in Chris Kyle’s movie, was the fact of the civilian home invasion in a way that we beat certain members of the family; whom may not know a single thing about who or where the main rebellion leaders may be.  The one aspect of that possible violation is that they have the cities evacuated because of a war zone, but honestly who wants to be kicked out of their home leaving everything behind to run away because Americans are fight with a small specialized group in your country.  These people fight back against Americans most probably because they just want to live how they want to live, they want to protect where they have set up home, and protect their family.
Team America though, was all about how this actor named Gary will help learn of the terrorists plans and save America, at the expense of killing the people who just want justice for the way that America has damaged their homes and invaded their lives, forever changing who they are and what they think of the rest of the world.Chris Kyle in America’s eyes could be interpreted as a murderous villain, a martyr, and or a soldier who was doing his job, and as a person who had two military parents growing up, I believe he was just doing his job.

‘Merica.

V for Vendetta

​In V for Vendetta, V fights for a revolution against the current political state.  Though many of his actions seem rooted in revenge for his past mistreatment, he continues to revolt for what he believes to be a truly corrupt state.  He believes that his actions are necessary to bring about the revolution he wishes to see, so many of the deaths that happened by his hand were an inevitable means to his end.  In this sense, V, himself, is not evil, nor does he intend to cause harm for harm’s/evil’s sake (Kagan).  The only people that V intentionally seeks out to kill are those linked to his imprisonment and disfiguration.  The rest occur through his actions of revolting to make a less dystopic society.  

​Evey starts as an innocent, somewhat disgruntled bystander.  During the initial meeting of her and V, Evey helps V escape.  In sparing his life, V feels an obligation to help Eveywhen she is left unconscious from the ordeal.  V must outweigh the consequences of taking her with him or leaving her.  Ultimately, he takes her to his place of residence, in a sense imprisoning her.  Though there are some negative side effects on Evey’s part, V felt that her life outweighed her imprisonment since she would have most likely been taken to a concentration camp for aiding V at the news station.  This action shows how evident it is that V is concerned for the people within the dystopian society that he is revolting against, since he has already saved Evey from law enforcers at a previous point.  In this way, V is very determined to bring about some type of goodness, even if he has to produce some negative outcomes.  He is saving Evey’s life in turn for her innocence, he is bringing about death to weed out the corruptness of the political power, and he is blowing up parliament to bring about a revolution to create a better, less corrupt society.  So, in essence, his actions (though harsh) are merely a means to an end, and the deaths and other negative outcomes are inevitable to bring about his ideal state. (Nagel)  In the end, V has changed Evey’s perspective so drastically that she is the one to send the train to blow up parliament and help actually start the revolution in his absence.  His determination led Evey to believe in his cause, and led thousands of others to continue his cause when he couldn’t.

Detached Desire for a Greater Calling

In the 1998 film Saving Private Ryan, we are told the war story of a group of men that fought their way through Europe in World War Two to find a paratrooper named Private Ryan. They are sent on the mission because all of Private Ryan’s brothers have been killed in battle and the U.S. Army has decided to send him home so his mother doesn’t have all of her sons killed in the world war. Of course there are men lost on this journey of finding a needle in a haystack and when they finally do find him, the rest of the men die in action, but Private Ryan lives on and tries to live his life to the fullest in honor of all the men that died for his safe return home.

The interesting thing about this is the cost of this objective that is paid to save the one life of a man with many. In the movie, one gets the sense that these men are doing it for the greater good, for Mrs. Ryan to have one son at least, that she shouldn’t have to pay such a price for the country. These men have the duty to follow orders and give a life of happiness and stability in America after the war for Private Ryan, they wanted it but they could do what they need to, to at least give a young soldier the chance to do that when, such as Captain Miller (Tom Hanks), has already lived that life before the war. Yes, he wants to return to that life, but it is duty that compels him and good will for Ryan to give everything in his power to completing the objective.

Immanuel Kant writes very much about good will and means of ends in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant writes on Dignity and Price, “Whatever is relative to universal human inclinations and needs has a market price. Whatever, even without a presupposing a need, accords with a certain taste--- that is, with satisfaction in the mere random play of our mental powers--- has an attachment price. But that which constitutes the sole condition under which anything can be an end in itself has not mere relative worth, i.e., a price, but an inner worth--- i.e., dignity”.  This kind of mission that the army gave Captain Miller has a price, but the final end is worth more than anything else because of the ethical implication they put on the families, why end a family name when it isn’t absolutely necessary even though that last brother is fighting at his own will. He has a greater attachment to country than family at first, but at the end has a great weight of responsibility to have lived up to what he was given by the men. Kant does also writes,”…The moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth, not in the objective to be reached by that action, but in the maxim in accordance with which the action is decided upon; it depends, therefore, not on actualizing the object of the action, but solely on the principle of volition in accordance with which the action was done without any regard for objects of faculty of desire.” I found this interesting just in the fact that there is moral worth in just following through with an objective without desire effecting your completion of it.

This brings me to my modern day point. There are people who operate drones to eliminate targets out wherever it is needed. The soldiers are in combat, but at home, they have to follow these objectives given without question and have no idea if what they do is morally right or wrong to them. There is a sense of duty in what they do, but there is a weight of wondering guilt if they did something considered wrong or right in the grand scheme of ends. So has the military made a form of war where the soldier has no choice in the ultimate end unlike war in World War Two, sure they didn’t have a choice what they had to do, but there were instance of hand to hand combat that allowed them to keep a shred of what they were doing morally and could decide for themselves.