MovieChat Forums > The American President (1995) Discussion > Blowing up Libya

Blowing up Libya

posted 16 years ago by ldthompson77
15 replies | jump to latest

Okay so....he orders Libyan Intelligence Headquarters blown to smithereens, right? Okay, no problem there. He orders it destroyed on the night shift though, when "the fewest people are there". How ridiculous! It was NOT the building that ordered the attack on the US missile system, and it wasn't the janitor he orders killed either! It was the WORKING STAFF AT THE HQ!!! Talk about a wasted mission and innocent lives taken for no reason or gain. So WHAT if you hit it in daytime? The people who make things happen are there then. Stupid.

H.A.L. + 1 = I.B.M. Arthur Clarke is a scary man.

[–] angelgwen16 16 years ago

He doesn't want to kill people. He just wants to blow up thier building and all the information in their files since it is Itelligence Headquarters. Killing people isn't his main job. Protecting this country is!

[–] ldthompson77 16 years ago

I understand that, but the point I was making was that if he is going to kill ANYONE, why kill innocent people? Why kill that janitor? Why not kill the people who actually ordered the attack on the US soldiers? :)

H.A.L. + 1 = I.B.M. Arthur Clarke is a scary man.

[–] angelgwen16 16 years ago

Either way innocent lives would be taken.

He doesn't want to kill anyone but unfortunately in an explosion people are going to die and he would rather it be a few innocent custodial workers than the hundreds of people that would be there during the day. He'd kill the people that you think should be killed, more custodial people that work in the daytime, other people that work there that didn't do anything bad, secretaries, people making delivers, family members (possibly) that visit their spouse. The list and possibilities are endless.

The number of people that should be killed would be greater if he bombed during the day. But so would the number of innocent bystanders.

Basically, it comes down to a choice.

Do you kill the 10 people you want to kill and 500 more innocent people.

Or do you kill 10 people and destroy all useful information.

Personally, I'd rather just kill 10.

[–] warrenburton 16 years ago

Yeah it sucks. I would never want to be in the position of killing people. It is the decision that the "President" of the USA has to make in these days and times.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

but the point I was making was that if he is going to kill ANYONE, why kill innocent people? Why kill that janitor? Why not kill the people who actually ordered the attack on the US soldiers? :)

As others have said, he wanted to minimize the number of deaths, period. The way he did it, one person died. Unfortunately, a completely innocent person. That is terrible, but if he ordered an attack that would kill the people responsible, he would also kill even MORE innocent people in the process.

This really was the lesser of two evils, but he is torn up about it. As he says, this is the least presidential thing he does.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] ldthompson77 13 years ago

But if he blew up the building in the daytime, the people being killed would be Libyan intel staff, and therefore, imo, NOT innocent -- they're the ones who planned Pan Am 500 for example. Killing 500 enemies is less bad than killing 1 neutral.

[–] briand10 11 years ago

Those PLUS daytime janitors, receptionists, gardeners, parking staff, operators, etc.

Kind of reminds me of the Death Star discussion in Clerks.

[–] smoko 11 years ago

@ldthompson77 To be fair, that janitor was a bit of a prick.

[–] Moviefan-Two-Kay-Four 9 years ago

He doesn't want to kill people. He just wants to blow up thier building and all the information in their files since it is Itelligence Headquarters. Killing people isn't his main job. Protecting this country is!

Precisely; this is the difference between leadership and being a bully.

[–] Caribbean_Smurf 12 years ago

I thought it was pretty funny that Michael J. Fox is in another movie where the Libyans are stirring up s#it.

[–] saintofkillers-1 10 years ago

The response scenario was supposed to decisive, low risk, proportional, and most importantly IMMEDIATE. The night shift just happened to be the one on when they decided to make their attack.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

Maybe he just didn't dig the shack as an example of North African architecture.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] TVippy 8 years ago

What was the point of the whole scene in the movie (was it historically accurate, BTW?)? To show that this president was a very good person?

-------------------------------------
OCD predator: www.goo.gl/0avZjB

[–] leader-7 8 years ago

A. it doesn't have to be "historically accurate" because this is a work of fiction and the fiction is really about the president's relationship with a woman, not about politics.
B. The point of the scene was to give him some legitimate presidential business to engage in
C. And yes, to show that he's a decent man, trying to retaliate which is generally considered a typical response when we're attacked

"Say anything about me, dahling, as long as it isn't boring."

[–] fani (446) 4 years ago

This is a great point I agree with.

Janitors working night shift shouldn't have to die. He should've ordered a surgical strike taking out the top people via the CIA assassinations method instead of a stupid bomb flying in from the sky to kill the people in the people and the building killing other innocents around the building.

This is the problem - he does this and then goes around banging Sydney as if nothing happened.

What difference is there then between him and Osama bin Laden? Or say another tango who says - blow up the Pentagon at night?