The Day After Yesterday

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I recently bought The Day After and thought it was eerily reminiscent of the liberal-left’s mocking of the War on Terror.  Like Reagan, Bush understands the only way to win a war is to take the fight to the enemy.  And like the liberals of the 1980’s, the liberals today don’t have the courage to face down the enemy.  Twenty years ago, they called Reagan reckless and his defense policies dangerous; today, which I’m dubbing The Day After Yesterday, they accuse Bush of conducting a war of choice, not of necessity.

Their intention today, as it was in the 80’s, is to weaken the war effort by creating mass hysteria.  Not only do they lack the courage to win the war and protect the American way of life, their intention, like the terrorists, is to destroy the current fabric of American society: both morally and economically (hence the liberals promotion of The Day After Tomorrow).
 
The Day After is perfect evidence of how wrong the liberals are.  I highly suggest everyone buy a copy and see how the liberals viewed the winning strategy which bankrupted the USSR and hastened the end of the Cold War.

[Beet]

The Day After was not about Reagan or foreign policy, it was a fiction about nuclear war. It protrayed nuclear war as less damaging than an actual war would be. I wont even dignify the rest of your post with a response. I'll just say, if you think like that, no wonder you're a Republican. However you are in need of some serious help.

[True Federalist]

It has been quite a while since I've seen it, but since IIRC that the war in that movie began with a Soviet invasion of West Germany, I don't see how you could say that it was an anti-Reagan film. Reagan never did advocate starting WW III.  It most definitely is an anti-nuclear war film in the fine tradition of such movies as Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe.  (Question: If those two films had been released in 1965 instead of 1964, would the famous "Daisy" ad have been as effective or even been made?)

[ATFFL]

The theory at the time was that Reagan, intentionally or not, was goading the Soviets into a war.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The theory at the time was that Reagan, intentionally or not, was goading the Soviets into a war.

Don't bother trying to explain it to them.  To them, all the movie's references to Reagan placing Tridents in Western Europe and thus provoking a confrontation with the Soviets is over their head.

[True Federalist]

While it probably should have been Pershings instead of Tridents, if that was in the movie (its been over a decade since I last saw it), I fail to see how placing the equivalent of SS-20's could be considered provocative enogh to goad the Societs into starting a war.  Assuming that it was there to make the point that there could be no such thing as a limited nuclear war, I fail to see the controversy.  A nuclear war limited to just Europe was always an impossibility and I can't recall anyone who thought that it was.  One might argue that the presence of theater nucear weapons in Europe might drag Europe into a nuclear exchange that it could have stayed out of, but not bloody likely given the presence of tactical nukes and the British and French nuclear forces, but that would be something of interest only to the European anti-nuke movement, not the American anti-nukers.

[Jake]

I bought this movie because it looked okay, but it was lame.  The worst example of a anti-nuke, low budget film.

[JohnFKennedy]

Not only do they lack the courage to win the war and protect the American way of life, their intention, like the terrorists, is to destroy the current fabric of American society: both morally and economically (hence the liberals promotion of The Day After Tomorrow).

Ah damn. you caught onto our major plan to "destroy the current fabric of American society". We were especially looking forward to that too.

You know, it really aggravates me when people do this, claim the other ideology is destroying American society, one could easily argue the same about the extreme religious right or any other ideology, what is the point in stooping to the level of saying things like people are "Un-American", just brings back memories of McCarthy for me.

[Nym90]

Amen, JFK. My thread in the section "Individual Politics" entitled "Why I'm a Democrat" explains fully well why I believe that the GOP base is fundamentally anti-American.

I feel that Bush lacks the moral courage to fight this war the way that it will truly be won; weaning ourselves from dependence on terrorist sponsoring dictatorships like Saudi Arabia by bringing about energy independence so that we don't need oil anymore. Of course, you can understand that an oilman wouldn't want to reduce his nation's dependence on the very lifeblood of his own business....

If we actually had a morally consistent foreign policy that was uniformally based on opposition to dictatorship and tyrrany, rather than our current foreign policy which supports whatever is good for big business (thus, supporting countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) even when it flies egregiously in the face of gross human rights violations, then we'd be FAR more respected and liked in the world. The problem with America's image in the world has nothing to do with this "They are jealous" BS, it's the fact that our foreign policy is hypocritical because we don't do what's best for people, we do what's best for profits. Sometimes we support dictatorship and terrorism, sometimes we oppose it, depending on what is good for business. If we had a morally consistent foreign policy, other countries would respect us and trust us to lead the global war on terror. But we lack the moral courage to stand up for what's right.