I instantly recognized that this movie was a parody of the military industrial complex, when i first saw it, long ago. Instead of being something which is meant to appease those who love sitting around and watching the blood splatter, it makes fun of them.
Its not that i am the kind of person who things miliaries are unnecesary. I think that they are vitally necessary. I also view the concept of nations as being vital. This movie depicts the gung-ho type of people who would use propoganda and such to justify the invasion of the domains of the people of other countries for specious reasons.
I am aware of the justifications of Bush in the Iraq war. The problem was that people were responding by supporting a war to invade another country and collectively punish the people of that country, rather than what is the proper response which is to defend the borders of our own country and keep the foreign people out who do not belong here anyway. The problem could have been solved at our own borders and since this was feasible and adequate, it was totally unnecessary in any case to invade another country. My solution to the event of 9-11 is one that would involve no war, no loss of life, and is non-violent, and that means to simply stop letting muslims into the USA, who have their own countries already, who have absolutely no right to come here anyway, and for which there is a sound, solid moral philosophy as to why they should not come here, and the government actually has an obligation to not allow them to come here based on a sound, universal moral philosophy, as I will explain. Compared to the war, this is relatively non violent and kills no one, and is the responsibility of the government to do anyway from the get-go, and is what the US government has done for the most of its history, including under the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act which is the law that we need to have in place today. This really is the only correct response as it is merely defensive and is based entirely upon the sound philosophical and moral philosophy of the function of the government of a nation to protect the founding populations of said nation. The Muslims have their own countries already where they are plentiful. The Muslims already have their own country where they have their own culture and identity. Letting them into a country like the USA only threatens diversity by threatening the unique qualities of the USA, for instance. Immigration between racial-ethnic domains is anti diversity threatens to weaken or destroy the unique qualities of each country, and it is exactly why that form of immigration should not be allowed. Immigration from the USA from Europe was acceptable as the USA was founded as a Christian, European majority realm, and Europe to USA immigration did not alter that national identity or racial demographics of the United States, it was in constistency and continuity with the traditional founding demographics of the country and maintains the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the country. Immigration from other places is not comparable as immigration from say, Asia, is destroying the traditional, unique qualities of the United States as it was founded.
Let us consider a hypothetical. Lets say we took millions of Pakistanis and started to dump them into Japan. Overtime, Japan would start to look more and more like Pakistan and less and less like Japan. By reducing the uniqueness of Japan and the unique, distinct, independant qualities of its population, we would be destroying diversity. The Pakistanis and the Japanese each have their own unique cultures and identities in their own countries, uniqueness which developed because of territorial soveriegnty and exclusivity which allows the population of each respective country to develop independantly, of its own accord, in each its own divergent way. Moving large numbers of people from pakistan to Japan would violate the very things that make Japan unique and threatens to destroy diversity. Only stopping all such immigration can preserve the unique qualities and identity of each country and therefore preserve global diversity. Therefore immigration is anti-diversity.
Fortunately Japan has a policy which allows very, very little immigration of non-Japanese into the country because the Japanese know that letting in large numbers of foreigners would destroy what makes their country unique. In fact, for the Japanese government to even suggest allowing in large numbers of foreigners would be an act of treason and a breach of the obligation of the government of the country to defend the people of the country, an obligation that exists as an anti-genocide measure specifically to preserve the unique and distinct qualities of the people of each country on the earth.
It is as I explain, a severe violation of the responsibilities of ANY government to allow the territory of the people of the country that the government is supposed to defend to be invaded or incurred upon by foreign peoples. The nation should be first defended at its borders by keeping foreign people out, preserving the territorial soveriegnty of the country. This both respects the true purpose of a countries government to exist and as well prevents the kind of things which we saw happen in 2001 by foreign actors.
The invasion or violation of a countries territory by foriegn people is exactly what the true nationalism model should defend against, in the proper conception the national model should act to defend the people of a country and invasions of the countries of others are exactly the thing that it should prevent. I subscribe concept of government in a form that is meant to protect the people of a country from being invaded by foreign people in order to preserve the unique and distinct qualities and identities, both culturally and racially, of each of the countries of the world, and that this model preserves global diversity by protecting the exclusive territorial domain of the people of each country.
It is clear in this concept that the government is not the country. The country is the founding ethnic-racial groups who traditionally comprise the countries population back to the day of its founding. The government is established by the people of the country for the primary purpose of protecting the country. The territory is the exclusive domain of the people of the country, not the government, which has no territorial rights. This means that the government has an obligation to the people of the country to defend the country, Any movement of foreign people into the country threatens the country itself by violating the exclusive territorial domain of the country, threatening to destroy the country. Since the government is not the country, if the government commits treason by aiding a movement of foreign people into the country, the government has taken sides against the country it was created to defend, has lost its legitimacy and needs to be replaced. Under this model, the government allowing immigration into a country of groups not a founding group of the country is tantamount to treason against the country and that this is a serious crime.
Throughout this I am suggesting that any government which allows a lot of immigration of foreign people into a country has commited an act of treason, and a crime of genocide, and that the governments of Europe and the US are in violation of this and have commited such offenses against the nations they are supposed to defend, threatening diversity by threatening to destroy the unique qualities of such countries.