Hi.

In the sf novel I am writing, I am now at the point where I need to depict a military and/or law-enforcement type attack on a compound (think religious cult).

I'm not much of a gamer and am not as up on the technology as I need to be, and in fact I want the depiction in the novel to be slightly futuristic, i.e., as if most of what is only on the drawing board now is already deployed -- at least on a limited scale.

So that may mean exoskelaton and other force multipliers. and/or cyborgs and/or robotics could be use, as well as surveillance drones, precision-guided munitions, psychopharmacology (sp?), etc.

The attack, as depicted in the narrative, will be fairly short and fairly limited, perhaps no more than a couple or three pages worth, but I need it to sound tech-savvy, efficient, quick, and violent.

So what I am coming to, as indicated in the 'Subject' for this post, is whether anyone can suggest some good resources for this sort of thing.

I am fairly close to the poverty line these days so I need free or very inexpensive resources if possible. Stuff available on the internet would be excellent, and I know I could just do google searches or something, but I'm sure I don't even know some of the key words and phrases to search for, and I might have trouble determining what was more or less authoritative and/or accurate.

So anybody out there with some expertise? Or with resource suggestions?

Thanks.

Try inventing names for your weapons that incorporate words we know. 
ie. psyhcopharm spray guns that can imoblize with a gas. Most folks have heard of the terms psychopharmocology, and spray guns. The death dealing droids could have names that call to mind ancient Gods of death or war or even both.
Good Luck and keep us posted. Love to see a sneak peek.
BJ

Thanks for the suggestions. I may play around with that some.

But I'm also interested in learning more about things as they exist on the drawing board, so I'm still interested in resource suggestions, if any.

You see, the setting for the novel is essentially now, not so much the future.

It is still sf, but not due to, or in regard to, the weaponry being used. It's a bit of a twist on the first contact concept, and one of the significant premises requires that certain weapons that probably don't exist yet, actually do, i.e., hardly anyone knows it because their actual existence is so highly classified.

Um... a quick google or so reveals:

Army Field manuals
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/index.html

DARPA "Small unit operations"
http://www.darpa.mil/sto/smallunitops/index.html

"Future Combat Systems"
https://www.fcs.army.mil/

Swat Tactics
http://www.nme.de/cgi-shl/nme/swat_T_Ebbc.php

Michael McCollum has a nice overview series of non-fiction articles on writing SF published as e-Books entitled "The Art Of Science Fiction Series" Volume 1 and Volume 2. price for both e-books together are $20... and I believe they are worth it [at one point Writer's published a series of books the were similar but cost a lot more]

http://www.scifi-az.com/nonfiction1.htm

If you are a reader and live in a large metro area--  go to a used book store and pick up almost anything by David Drake that looks like future combat, Any of Jerry Pournelle's Falkenberg's legion stories, Heinlein's Starship Troopers [It's the source of the movie but they rewrote the way Heinlien saw the "mobile Infantry"]... For near present day read Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlem...

If you are into Anime movies try Appleseed  or the first Ghost in the Shell Movie... Or the GITS Stand Alone Complex  animated series [about an elite anti-terrorist unit of Cyborgs] that crops up every now and then on  the SF channel.

good luck

gishzida
a.k.a .Troubadour in the Al.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo Anthology Vol 1 and Vol. 2
http://www.accanthology.com/

gishzida, this looks excellent.

thank you!

Quote - gishzida, this looks excellent.

thank you!

All excellent resources.  As a former soldier I can tell you that the battlefield of the not so distant future is one of information.  Even today's military is using more and more robots and remotely piloted vehicles to gather information first - get eyes and ears into places before you go in kicking down doors.

During hostage situations it is pretty much SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) that SWAT or any other tactical group you wish to name does everything it can to asses the situation first before putting there own people in harms way.  Tactics and information gathering is everything.

Fiber optic cables with cameras are pushed through air ducts or under doors  to get live video feed of whats going on inside a room before you "breach" (kick the door in).  You want to know where the bad guys are, how many there are, and just exactly how they are armed before you go in.  The whole idea is to take all of them out as quickly as possible with the least amount of collateral damage.

Ok, with that having been said (covers most of the very basics anyway), I have one request.  My biggest peeve with hollywood and indeed most written works is that everytime a writer tries to describe a military member or police officer they completely miss the mark.

Most military or police portrayed in movies are portrayed as borderline psychopaths who simply enjoy violence for the sake of violence.  They are hot tempered and generally a bunch of short sighted cowboys who think the solution to every problem is to charge in guns blazing. 

This is not at all how real military or police commanders think, not even remotely.  There biggest concern is to accomplish there mision with the fewest amount of casualties.  If the situation doesn't demand immediate action, they are going to take there time, assess all the information they can get and make a careful decision on how best to use all their resources to maximum advantage.

The kind of borderline psychopath's with impulse control problems that are almost always depicted in hollywood movies would never make it through the most basic of military training, much less advance to become leaders of any police or military unit.  Sadly though a lot of writers have never had first hand military or police experience so they rely on what is often the only resource they have for this - movies that are so far off the mark it's sickening.

One other thing you might like to consider, call your local police department and see if maybe you can arrange an interview with a SWAT or other tactical officer or even a tour of there training facilities.   You'd be surprised how much information you can pick up and how willing people are to talk about what it is that they do for a living.  They want to be accurately depicted, even in a work of fiction. 

thanks for the suggestions, renderdog, and just so you know, the novel's protagonist is ex-special forces -- and, there are both good and not so good "military types" portrayed ... none of whom seem to have impulse control problems ...

sorry if this disappoints.   ;*)

(oh, but, then, on the flip side, I have become acquainted with a few law enforcement and military types over the years, and I can confirm that some indeed are 100% nuts -- but given what said some had to deal with, I try not to judge them too harshly)

Quote - thanks for the suggestions, renderdog, and just so you know, the novel's protagonist is ex-special forces -- and, there are both good and not so good "military types" portrayed ... none of whom seem to have impulse control problems ...

sorry if this disappoints.   ;*)

(oh, but, then, on the flip side, I have become acquainted with a few law enforcement and military types over the years, and I can confirm that some indeed are 100% nuts -- but given what said some had to deal with, I try not to judge them too harshly)

Nuts is a given.. you have to be nuts to want to do the job.  The point is though that almost all military types portrayed by hollywood are horribly undisciplined, and that just rankles.  Last movie I saw featuring about the military was "Jarhead", and they portrayed everyone in the marine corps as some sort of sadistic, undisciplined, violent psychopath.  Thank goodness I didn't pay to see that piece of garbage, I caught it on cable on a night with nothing else on I wanted to see.

Granted, I wasn't expecting much, hollywood generally has a pretty bad anti-military bias to begin with, but this was over the top even for them.  Point is that most guys who go military or police believe in something bigger than themselves.  They join because they want to make a difference - do something important.

For the most part your looking at a terrible job performed under the most adverse conditions with low pay and to top it all off you get shot at - but people stay in because they believe in what they are doing and that what they are doing matters.  But you never see that from hollywood, and sadly it's dam rare to find any writers who portray it well either.   It's just outside the realm of many people's experience I guess, to be willing to risk your life day in and day out because you believe in something.

Sadly most writers go with the hollywood view, or at least in large part, that anybody who does the job is "ruined" by it, that even ordinary people are brainwashed into becoming violent psychopaths as a result of the training.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact most of the time your biggest risk of getting killed is because of ROE - rules of engagement.  Normally in most circumstances your not allowed to shoot until you get shot at first - which is not the most ideal sort of rule to have in a combat situation.

But the rules are there and they stay in place because the military is so concerned with collateral damage that it's willing to risk the lives of it's own troops to try and protect non-combatants to the utmost.  It's part of the job.  You go into it knowing you might take a bullet because your not allowed to shoot first and ask questions later, under any circumstances.  And to stay in the military knowing that.. well, that isn't the sort of thing a violent psychpath is willing to do by any stretch of the imagination.  These are folks of the highest honor and integrity, and the deserve a hell of a lot more respect and admiration than what they recieve.

I hope that at least some of that helps, and I hope that it will give you a bit of insight into the mind of the modern combat soldier.  The vietnam era I'm only here because I have no choice or couldn't get another job days are long, long since over.  Sadly the morons in hollywood can't seem to grasp this concept at all.

The people who join the military now do so for a variety of reasons, but I can garauntee you that the ones that stay in past there original hitch do so for one reason and one reason only, because they truly believe that what they do matters and that they are making a difference. 

Okay, renderdog. What you've said makes a lot of sense, and I'll take your word for most of it.

I don't have quite the same take on the entertainment industry as you do though.

Maybe it's because I'm not as sensitive to it, but I seem to recall seeing plenty of films that do not have a particularly anti-military bias, and certainly many police TV shows and movies that do not have an anti-law enforcement bias. I am pretty much under the same impression with the various novels I've read.

I'm sure you have a point, and maybe we've watched and read vastly different material. But honestly, doctors and lawyers and politicians, etc., tell me much the same thing, i.e., that their professions -- and personalities and challenges and such -- are not accurately represented in the entertainment industry.

And I would opine that virtually any profession that is portrayed frequently and prominently in the entertainment industry is being portrayed in the first place because a), such professions are generally respected, commonly aspired to, or considered important or vital to society in some way (which I would hope you might take some comfort in), b), the basic issues and challenges involved in such professions are commonly known and understood to have dramatic implications, and/or c), the profession in question has been in the news a lot lately (and keep in mind that what makes the news is most often negative, e.g., violence, malpractice, corruption, malfeasance, etc.)

Given that, it is impossible to do a particularly good job of representing all the complexities of a given profession or the individual personalities involved (much less human nature) in ~90 minutes (give or take), and the movie/tv industry is about trying to appeal to (and communicate readily with) the public at large. For that matter, to a fairly equivalent extent, so is the novel-writing business. (It's all pretty much the same industry now.)

Wrong or right, lazy or not, a lot of shorthand, easy-to-understand, eminently recognizable tags, traits and stereotypes are used to convey the sense of a character, his or her motives, values, etc. Many rightly call these clichés, and yet when I have tried in my own work to create complex characters that veer away from such clichés -- (e.g., how about an elderly college professor who talks openly about her sexual liaisons and curses "like a sailor"?; or a young, streetwise black man who likes opera?; or how about simply an inner city politician who is not on the take and actually is trying to do the right thing?) -- I have been frequently, and sometimes harshly, criticized for it.

And I now understand that criticism, and even agree with some of it, because I have gradually come to recognize that such personalities, although they do exist, are not easily identifiable characters to many people. When a writer uses such unusual characters -- except when it's fairly obvious he or she has a very specific effect or purpose in mind -- much of his or her audience may very well decide that, because they do not have any idea what to expect of such characters, they cannot root for their success or failure, in fact cannot even easily determine if such characters are deserving of success or failure. And I have come to believe that storytelling is all about entertainment values that nearly always take precedence over verisimilitude, e.g., dramatic tension, suspense, characters you can easily understand and empathize with, and often, characters you can just as easily despise. Most readers and viewers, I think, are far more willing to forgive an exciting, entertaining story that is inaccurate in some respects, than a profoundly boring story that is just oh so true to life.

Of course that's not to say you can't have good measures of both drama and verisimilitude, but even assuming a given writer or film maker has the necessary sophistication (which in itself is a pretty big leap of faith), editors and producers, and their often young assistants, y'know, many of whom have fairly limited life experience and have been fed by the entertainment industry themselves for decades, are the threshold guardians by which a writer or film maker must pass muster.

So ... you know ... writing fiction and film making are professions in which -- to have much hope of ever being commercially published or produced, much less making any real living at it -- you are almost required not only to please editors or producers, and their usually young assistants, but also a mass audience, and to be quickly and easily understood by all --

-- or as close to "all" as you can reasonably get.

In the end the only two things that are certain, in my opinion:  a), you won't please everyone; and b), on the list of those you can ill afford to displease, actual practitioners of the professions portrayed (no disrespect intended) are pretty near the bottom.

Well, when I started, I didn't intend to be argumentative or to write an essay, but for however much or little it's worth, that's my take.

Hi guys,

*"Ok, with that having been said (covers most of the very basics anyway), I have one request.  My biggest peeve with hollywood and indeed most written works is that everytime a writer tries to describe a military member or police officer they completely miss the mark."

Thanks for the feedback, Renderdog.
It is so important for a writer to have real testimonies and info to get the facts and storyline straight and to make it as real as possible. As a writer myself, I tend to only write about what I know personally but like to stretch my skills by putting myself in others shoes, so to speak.

Hugs and thanks for stepping in to share with us.

Quote - Okay, renderdog. What you've said makes a lot of sense, and I'll take your word for most of it.

I don't have quite the same take on the entertainment industry as you do though.

Maybe it's because I'm not as sensitive to it, but I seem to recall seeing plenty of films that do not have a particularly anti-military bias, and certainly many police TV shows and movies that do not have an anti-law enforcement bias. I am pretty much under the same impression with the various novels I've read.

How about a little challenge?  Can you name one major hollywood motion picture made in say, the last 5 years that doesn't portray the military in a negative light in which the military plays a prominent role in the films plotline?

I realize its become so commonplace that most people don't even realize it, but almost every movie out there nowadays portrays the military as a corrupt, violent organization whose only goal when they are featured in a movie seems to be either taking over our government or keeping some dark secret.

Even when the main character in the movie is military or ex-military, he inevitably ends up at odds with the "military establishment" because he has a conscience, and they do not - at least according to the hollywood script  mill.

I realize this is a little off topic, and I'm not trying to start any sort of a flame war here, I'm just really curious to see if you can find a single motion picture put out by hollywood in the last 5 years that doesn't show the military as a horrible, corrupt, evil organization.

I think you might be surprised by the results.  I think it might be a bit harder comiing up with a film in this category than you might think.

Quote - Hi guys,

*"Ok, with that having been said (covers most of the very basics anyway), I have one request.  My biggest peeve with hollywood and indeed most written works is that everytime a writer tries to describe a military member or police officer they completely miss the mark."

Thanks for the feedback, Renderdog.
It is so important for a writer to have real testimonies and info to get the facts and storyline straight and to make it as real as possible. As a writer myself, I tend to only write about what I know personally but like to stretch my skills by putting myself in others shoes, so to speak.

Hugs and thanks for stepping in to share with us.

No worries.  I know that it's hard to capture all of the various interplay and get everything 100% accurate in any sort of work of fiction.  However sadly it seems there is a very bad trend in modern fiction to portray military and ex-military types in a very negative way.  Most of these characters are portrayed in 2 dimensional fashion that lacks any sort of depth or real understanding of the type of people who generally join the military, and I must admit its getting rather frustrating for those of us who either are serving or did once serve (as I did) to keep watching our honor, our integrity and even our intelligence questioned and derided on a daily basis.

Quote - How about a little challenge?  Can you name one major hollywood motion picture made in say, the last 5 years that doesn't portray the military in a negative light in which the military plays a prominent role in the films plotline?

Well, first off, you have me at a disadvantage. I didn't know we were limiting the topic to the last 5 years. I am a lifetime reader and movie watcher and am getting a little old, so I had various films (and books) in mind that won't make the grade.

Nevertheless, I will give it a try.

But first, let me say, without any intention of offending or turning this into a "flame war" as you said, it seems to me that the perennial cry (at least from some) has been that Hollywood liberals hate the military and cast the military in a bad light, and although there is considerable evidence that the opposite has been at least as often true, no evidence to the contrary is ever seriously considered by these critics in my experience.

That statement may or may not apply to you. I will let you decide whether it does or not. In any case, I am fairly sure you have your opinion and it isn't much more likely to change than mine, so I do not intend to get into this much deeper.

For one thing, I simply don't have the time or energy. Like I said, I am getting a little old.

But in brief, while I am not going to do the research to determine whether or not a given movie falls exactly within your 5-year limit, I will mention a few that seem relatively recent to me, and relatively positive about the military or military life (in one sense or another, which I will have more to say about in a moment).

So here goes.

How old is "Stop Loss" ?

While arguably antiwar and uneven in its approach, it seems to have gotten about as many positive responses from real soldiers as negative, due at least in part to what some perceive to be its pro-soldier and pro- camaraderie "feel" -- and I don't readily accept that criticism of the war and how the current leadership may have handled things in terms of the war or treatment of our soldiers is anti-military as most of that perceived failure has been about the civilian leadership.

How old is "Pearl Harbor" ?

Or "The Sum of All Fears" ?

Admittedly it's been a while since I saw those two, but I don't recall them being particularly negative about the military. Am I mistaken? In any event, as the above 3 took no research whatsoever, I bet I could turn up more if I were willing to put out more effort -- but I'm not.

Instead, let's talk a little bit about some basic assumptions here, that may or may not be accurate takes on reality.

For example,

careful viewing of these and many, many other films may reveal that military professionals are often depicted as "some good" and "some bad" -- just as people tend to be in every other walk of life. And as I am not aware of any institution or profession that Hollywood movies always depict as being 100% positive in all respects -- not even Hollywood movie making itself -- I see no justification if you expect as much in regard to the military. Do you?

And,

as for the main character having to be someone who inevitably ends up "at odds with the 'military establishment'," the rebel who makes his own rules is the mythical American hero. You will find him or her in virtually all commercially successful American action and adventure films, and it certainly has nothing specific to do with military-oriented films, and far more to do with American history and culture, i.e., most Americans have pretty much always had very mixed feelings about authority, and though most subject themselves to what they perceive to be the necessity of authority on a daily basis, many understandably find themselves in admiration of those who do not. There are numerous examples of this tendency, both historic and modern.

But let's move on.

In fact the U.S. military has been (since WW II, and remains to this day) intimately involved in the making of many military-oriented Hollywood movies, and have often had considerable say so about what is and is not allowed in the movie in return for their cooperation -- and most Hollywood film producers have taken the deal.

The U.S. military has often been less interested in reality and accuracy than in positive images (perhaps to assist in recruiting efforts?) and have tried to change historical facts that are negative. Kevin Costner's and Peter Almond's "Thirteen Days" comes to mind as well as HBO's production of "The Tuskegee Airmen," where viewers had no idea that the good guy and the bad guy had been reversed at the request of the head of the Pentagon's film office.

Further, movies that have not passed muster, the military has refused to allow to be shown in military theaters overseas or on U.S. military bases (such as Clint Eastwood's 'Heartbreak Ridge').

So if you have a problem with how the military is depicted in the average Hollywood movie, it sounds to me like you may have a problem with the leadership in the Pentagon, given that they have had and continue to have considerable -- and (perhaps) arguably unconstitutional -- influence over the process.

But you are still welcome to your opinion, and I'm outta here! -- at least for now.

Quote - But first, let me say, without any intention of offending or turning this into a "flame war" as you said, it seems to me that the perennial cry (at least from some) has been that Hollywood liberals hate the military and cast the military in a bad light, and although there is considerable evidence that the opposite has been at least as often true, no evidence to the contrary is ever seriously considered by these critics in my experience.

Well, if you can give me a list of movies that have been made recently that cast the military in a positive light then I can certainly accept that as positive evidence to the contrary, provided they are somewhat on par with the huge list of movies I could give you in return that treated the military horribly.  If you could only name on film and I could name hundreds, well, that would be I think more convincing evidence of my claim than yours.

However I have no desire to flame anyone over this - just an experiment, as I said.

Quote - How old is "Stop Loss" ?

Lol - too old, it's a movie that should have never been made.  It was horribly anti- military,  The main character comes home from Iraq, decides he doesn't want to go back and goes AWOL.  The evil military tricked me so I'm going to run away like a punk is pretty much the main theme of the movie.   Whether you support the war or not, as a soldier your duty is to fight it, and by shirking that duty you put your friends, your collegues at greater risk because they will return to fight it.  The main character broke the faith - big time.  The person who wrote this character obviously, again, had little to no idea how a combat soldier thinks.

Look, I'm not here to debate the wisdom nor the handling of the Iraq war by any means.  Everybody always has there two cents worth on that one and its a pointless argument either way.  But when your military your job is to obey the orders of the civilian authority that the Constitution has placed over you.  For good or bad, right or wrong, as long as those orders are lawfully given then you have promised to obey them, plain and simple.

So when Uncle Sam tells you to put your boots on, its time to go to war, thats what you do.  If he tells you that he needs you to stay longer than they planned, you stay.  If he tells you to go back because they need you again, you go.  And you go because your part of something bigger than yourself, something sacred.  The men you are in combat with are closer to you than brothers or fathers could ever be, thats just the way it is.   What the main character in this film did was to run out on that commitment - not the piece of paper he signed with the government mind you, he ran out on the men in his unit.  The word for that, btw, isn't deserter, it's dirtbag IMHO.  What makes it worse is he's supposedly a seargent, those are his boys he left behind.  They're going back and he's not. 

So, in this film we have all the classic elements of your "Hollywood hates the military" genre in almost every scene.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Amputee Hospital
Solider Who Can't Handle Life Outside Military
Solider Who Can't Forgive Himself
Alcoholism
Wives Who Can't Understand Their Husbands
Political Commentary on War's Justification

It beats us over the head with how terrible war is and how no one should ever have to fight it, and though it is far less "harsh" as far as directly criticizing soldiers themselves, they are for the most part portrayed as clueless sheep being forced to fight a supposedly amoral war and then being forced to return even though it is horribly unfair to them that they do so. 

Nope, I think stop loss most definately proves my point far more readily than it proves yours.  Stop loss, btw, was released in 2008, so it is well within the 5 year time span.

Quote -
How old is "Pearl Harbor" ?

It was released in 2001 - so technically not within the last five years, butI must give you credit, it is far better in this regard than your first choice.  One interesting thing, you rarely if ever see hollywood do an all out "hatchet job" on the military when it comes to movies about WWII - the slaps are more subtle, more disguised than they would be otherwise.   Watch what a total monster they portray Jimmy Doolittle to be, he comes off like a complete jackass in this movie, and that just wasn't the case.

The main character only gets involved in the Doolittle raid because his best friend has an affair with his girlfriend.  He doesn't volunteer out of duty or honor or any of that crap, oh no - he's only there because his heart was broken and now he wants to go on a suicide mission to prove his love for the tramp who dumped all over him.    So yes, the anti-soldier anti-military stuff is a bit more subtle here, but still there.

Quote -
Or "The Sum of All Fears" ?

Lol - well, it was released in 2002 so it's right on the 5 year borderline, but wow - very very bad choice on your part.  The main plotline centers around a group of innocent refugees in Africa that the horrible, terrible, unfeeling military establishment  orders a SEAL team to abandon to their grisly fate.  The SEAL team refuses that order, to their credit, but again it is the evil military willing to let civilians die horrible deaths because they just don't care storyline in a nut shell.

Quote -
careful viewing of these and many, many other films may reveal that military professionals are often depicted as "some good" and "some bad" -- just as people tend to be in every other walk of life. And as I am not aware of any institution or profession that Hollywood movies always depict as being 100% positive in all respects -- not even Hollywood movie making itself -- I see no justification if you expect as much in regard to the military. Do you?

A 100% positive no, of course not, nor would I expect it to be.  50% positive would be nice.  When you start falling below 10% that's when I start griping. 

Quote -
as for the main character having to be someone who inevitably ends up "at odds with the 'military establishment'," the rebel who makes his own rules is the mythical American hero. You will find him or her in virtually all commercially successful American action and adventure films, and it certainly has nothing specific to do with military-oriented films, and far more to do with American history and culture, i.e., most Americans have pretty much always had very mixed feelings about authority, and though most subject themselves to what they perceive to be the necessity of authority on a daily basis, many understandably find themselves in admiration of those who do not. There are numerous examples of this tendency, both historic and modern.

Funny, I see a lot of these rebels portrayed in films where they are making there own rules against the evil Military or evil corporate America or the evil CIA or the evil Government.  Haven't seen too many films where the "evil" organization is say, Planned Parenthood, an Animal rights group, a Gay rights group, etc.. etc..   Evil politicians are almost always republican, good politicians are almost always democrats, etc.. etc..

Now I'm not saying that Hollywood should go out of it's way to target these groups, far from it, I'm just pointing out that Hollywood most definately has a political agenda in making movies. 

As to the military having that much control over the making of movies, I'd say your way off base in that regard.  If that were true I seriously doubt there would be this many anti-military, anti-soldier movies out there.

Even in your three examples only one of the three could even remotely be considered not to be stringently anti-military, and that one was a WWII flick.  Hollywood as I said is always much nicer to WWII vets than they are to the rest of us.  So, are you willing to change your mind based on evidence?  Or is your opinion locked in regardless of facts?

Okay, Renderdog, have it your way.

Based on your response, I suspect you could find something anti-military in almost any recent movie, just as I suspect I could find something pro-military in most of the same movies.

So how much of that is objective reality, and how much of it is that people tend to find what they are looking for?

Any judgment, yours or mine, is by nature subjective. I look at "Stop Loss" and I see a movie that, for all its faults, is advocating fair treatment for our soldiers.

I have personally met a soldier right here in my own home town who was as patriotic as anyone I've met when this Iraq war started who, now on his third tour, feels that the government's civilian and military leaders have lied to and taken advantage of him and his friends. He says if he is sent back a forth time, he may not go and that many of his friends feel the same way. Should I go tell him he is unpatriotic and anti-military? Well, I don't think I will. I'll leave that to you.

You make some points, and it is understandable that soldiers want to fight to keep each other alive, and it is understandable that those who eventually make the choice to rebel against that ethic will be viewed by many as not living up to their obligations -- but, I don't see how that means that our civilian (and military) leadership should not be held to some standard as well -- perhaps even of fairness. The fact is, since the government maintains that everything in the agreement can be changed at any time, after you sign up, virtually anything the military wants to do to you could be construed to be legal, but that does not necessarily make it right.

If you want to say a movie that advocates fair treatment for our soldiers is, by its nature, "stringently anti-military" that's your business, but like I said, "Stop Loss" has been harshly criticized AND praised by real soldiers. You happen to be one of those who say it is "anti-military." Why is your opinion more valid than those soldiers, some recently back from Iraq, who say otherwise?

As for "Sum ...", it's been too long since I've seen it to go into any detail, but as you've already implied, there is at least one thing to its credit, and as to how anti-military it is for the leaders -- not the soldiers on the ground -- of our military and civilian establishments to be depicted as having ordered troops to abandon innocents to their grisly fate ... well, it has happened ... but I suppose that's no real defense from your point of view.

As for your other points, as I already stated, such professions as the soldier, the police officer, etc., are frequently and prominently depicted in the movies largely due to the perceived social significance of the profession, the perceived authority of the profession, etc., and the perceived dramatic potential. If you want to believe Planned Parenthood, and animal and gay rights groups, are widely perceived to have the same significance to society, have similar authority and influence over people's lives, and are widely perceived to have the same dramatic potential as, say, men and women who are part of the most powerful, best-funded and most authoritative portions of our government and are locked in life and death struggles on a daily basis ... and that therefore indicates some sort of evil Hollywood bias ... well that's your business -- but whether you accept it or not, there are other, at least as reasonable explanations for why such groups are not often a central player AT ALL in most movies, much less depicted as evil as you seem to be suggesting they should be.

And if the military is depicted as so often evil from your point of view maybe it would be worthwhile for you to consider that it may at least partially be because many people -- even many Republicans who are very pro-military -- start from the premise that the military IS a necessary evil. Yes, it is about national defense and personal honor and duty, but it is also about soldiers' lives sometimes being sacrificed for greedy political and cynical economic motives, and about death and dismemberment and tragedy and destruction and widows and widowers and fatherless and motherless children -- often on a massive scale, and all these are subjects many -- even many soldiers -- wish this old world could do without.

As for evil politicians as being almost always Republican ... I've never noticed. I'm not even sure most politicians in the movies -- except when it is a reference to an actual historic figure -- are even identified by party. If they are, I've never noticed that much either.

I guess maybe I don't have enough of an agenda to notice.

I also notice you didn't bother to respond to some of my other points, so I think I will follow suit.

In any case, if I were in your shoes, with your background, I might very well feel the same way you do. But I'm not. Nor am I convinced you are somehow more objective than I due to that background.

I'm sure you can think of much more to say, as probably can I, but I bet we both have other, more rewarding things to do.

Even when one or the other of us is convinced the other is unequivocally wrong, we still have a right to our own points of view -- so how about let's thank those who have fought and sometimes paid a terrible price over the years so that we do? And leave it there? And move on?

Since I signed off yesterday, I have realized I left out a few points I intended to make.

1. Something you have done throughout this discussion, in my opinion, is to equate an anti-war message with an anti-military message. They are not exactly the same thing. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that World War II, as you mentioned it is often given a bit of a pass from your point of view, was better understood and far more popular than the current war in Iraq has been. If the current war were more popular, and its aims better understood and more widely agreed upon, the depiction of the military in recent films might have been different, and in fact -- in spite of this war's unpopularity -- there are rumored to be several very positive war movies in the works.

In any case, anti-war messages are usually anti-this-war by their nature, and anti-this-war and anti-this-leadership are not the same as anti-military.

1. As to you having "serious doubts" about the military being so involved in movie making, why do you think so many war movies end with an acknowledgment that the film makers owe a debt to the cooperation of the US military? You are wrong. But feel free to have "serious doubts" about whatever provable facts you like.

Look, over the years I've had my share of debates, and unlike many I know, I've had fairly frequent success in changing my opponents' minds, but it is usually a helluva lot of work, and I don't have the inclination to work that hard for such a limited return any more, and I really don't consider it my job to educate you. If you do not believe the military is significantly involved in the process, feel free to research it.

And if you should discover I am right, and can admit it, then maybe your problem is not that the Pentagon does not have significant influence in the process, but that the Pentagon simply does not exercise enough control over the content to suit you? If so, maybe that would open the door of perception to the possibility that those in the Pentagon may not see all these movies in quite the same negative light you do? And, if so, what would that mean? Or that maybe they believe in freedom of expression more than you do? And, if so, what would that mean?

1. If Republicans are depicted as evil more often in the entertainment industry as you claim, could it possibly be because Republicans are far more critical of Hollywood?, and have, historically and contemporarily, played a much larger role in the effort to censor and control Hollywood?, or should we assume that could have no impact whatsoever on an industry peopled by those who make their living from free expression?

2. I probably should not have become involved in this discussion in the first place. I'm not sure I understand this whole anti-military argument anyway. What does it mean to be "anti-military?" Does it mean that any movie in which any individual character, or group of characters, is or are depicted as misbehaving, or having difficulties coping, or having impure motivations, that movie is, de facto, "anti-military?" If so, it reminds me of the effort by some so-called right-wingers to paint anyone who is critical of this particular president, or his particular war policies, as un-patriotic and un-American, when anyone with even half a brain knows the United States, and its traditions, culture, values, and role in the world, are so much more than, and have been, and are very likely to be, around far longer than, any particular leader or any particular set of policies. Further, how does depiction of individuals behaving badly become an indictment of a seemingly immortal institution of which they just happen to be a very temporary part anyway? Isn't such behavior more an indictment of the individual? I thought we lived in a society where the social order is largely maintained on the basic principle that the individual, not the institution, is to be held most responsible for their own bad behavior. Isn't that what you would say if someone were to suggest that they should not be held responsible because the social environment in which such individuals developed, and/or the institutions in which they performed their bad behavior, are to blame? When a child misbehaves, do we generally claim that their behavior is an indictment of the institutions of family and parenthood? I think not. So when some, who are also part of the military, and often in the same movie, are depicted well, why the automatic "anti-military" assumption when some other military characters are depicted in a less than stellar light?

Well, by now I've either made a few good points or I haven't. (And in spite of the potential appearance of this second post, I still hope to move on soon, so if you can just pretend this was part of the original post, and treat it as such, I'd appreciate.)