As
United 93 was coming to a close, and
the passengers were attempting to take back control of the plane, I could not
help but notice how angry I felt. I wanted revenge. We have discussed
Elshtain’s comment about anger being an appropriate response roughly a year
after the attacks, but here I am a decade later having that same response
conjured back up. I was not expecting to have that kind of reaction, or such a
strong reaction, given all that has happened since the planes went down. Do you
believe that the U.S. response was emotionally driven? Or was it an
economically driven attempt to seek out oil and spread American influence as
Syriana might suggest? Does the fact that Iraq was chosen as the target play a
role in your answer choice?
Personally, I cannot help but think
that emotions played a fairly significant role in the decision to go to war,
phantom or not. Something needed to be done, and it needed to be done
relatively quickly to show our strength and resolve. At the same time, it is
hard to ignore arguments similar to what is depicted in Syriana. But I would hate to think that such a tragic event was
simply used as a catalyst to pursue economic endeavors. I can see how the
likely answer would be a little bit of both, but if I had to choose I would
draw U.S. motives from United 93
before Syriana, even though it may
not be correct.
Is it possible that our emotions are being exploited for economic or geopolitical ends?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to agree with Doctor Metres, and disagree with your opinion about United 93 over Syriana. I hate to break it to you, but the people in charge of the nation matter more than the mass of average people. Most people may say that anger is what caused us to go to war with "Terror" in the middle east, but that anger is why they supported the war, but the anger and emotion is the tool that the government let happen, not in a "letting 9/11 happen way" but a "letting people get themselves worked up" over what had happened. That is why I say that Syriana is the better movie at showing the reason why America wanted into the middle east. They wanted something over there and so when people got angry at people over there the government said "LET'S HAVE A WAR!".
ReplyDeleteHow can the government possibly control or "let" our emotions go a certain way? The government had no control over how we personally felt about 9/11. They did not allow it to happen so we would feel a certain way. However, they may have had an effect on our opinions and emotions with how they chose to respond to the event. I agree that people exploit others, even under some severe circumstances, but I am not sure that our original and primary intent for going there was to increase our economic and political means. At the time, I believe that there was a combination of both motives. Both movies capture the truth of the situation.
ReplyDelete