Rambo III
By Peter John Gardner
Let me just say right off the bat that I'm going to get somewhat off track on this one because as far as Rambo III is concerned, there's nothing more I can add besides some more Cold War commentary that I've already covered in Rambo: First Blood Part II and Rocky IV (these films are classy because they use Roman numerals).
Rambo III seems to forget that it should actually be called First Blood Part III but who's keeping track? Anyway, it takes its cue more from the second film than the first, which means instead of exploring the effects of PTSD on a Vietnam Vet (which would've made a far more interesting film), we get another movie with Rambo planted in the middle of a foreign country and ordered to blow things up, which he does a lot. The plot itself finds Rambo on a mission to rescue his former commanding officer who happens to be in Afghanistan being held captive by those pesky Russians.
It's easy to see the parallels between the film's depiction of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 80s and America's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq in the 00s. Yes, America provided Afghani rebels (see they're not terrorists unless they're against us) with aid and arms to fight the Russians. Yes, Afghanistan ended up using those very same resources on us when we went in there after 9/11 on our "BIN LADEN: WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" mission.
By the way, weren't we supposed to catch that guy? What happened with that?
I don't want to go on an anti war rant because most of us are all on the same page about Iraq now. There are those such as myself that were against it from the beginning, those that are against it now for the right reasons, and those that are against it simply because we're not "winning" (wrong reasons, but at least they're on our team now). Yeah, our administration purposely misled the public (sidenote: Kudos to Kucinich for finally having the cajones to file an impeachment against Cheney). Yeah, Iraq is starting to look like Vietnam. Yeah, we're about to do the same thing with Iran. We all know.
What I'd like to address here is the apathy that I've gained towards politics over the years. 2000 was the first election that I was eligible to vote in, and hot damn, I was excited. It was Bush vs. Gore, and I remember the general feeling that Gore was going to win. Bush was not qualified enough, he seemed kind of...dumb, and Gore was coming off as vice-president during one of the best presidencies of the twentieth century (Argue all you want about Clinton. It's true.) So, I voted for Nader that election. In hindsight, it was a very foolish choice, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. I was certain that Gore would win, so I was in the camp of people that wanted Nader to get enough votes so that a third party would receive federal funding during the next election and Americans would be able to have more palpable third party choices for the presidency.
We all know how that one turned out.
2004, I was fed up with everything about the Bush administration, as was half of America (or at least ones that read the newspapers). Bush stole the first election, proved himself to be a downright inept leader, and made Reagan look like Steven Hawking. At this time, I was at UCF and election fever was unavoidable. I joined in, thinking that I could make a difference. I helped register people to vote. I handed out information regarding why Bush was a failure. In the end, it didn't matter. The morning after the election, I lost my faith not only in the American people, but also my ability to make a difference in politics as well.
No matter how much concrete facts and information people had, they still voted for Bush. "He's going to end terrorism!" Sure, he's also going to end racism too. Just watch. Not only that, but so much sketchy stuff happened in Ohio and Florida that day that I believe the election would've gone to Captain Asshole regardless of the actual results of the election.
Here we are now with the 2008 elections right around the corner. Save for Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates, while more articulate, are just as sketchy and misguided as Bush. The Democrats seem to be more concerned with slinging mud at each other instead of dismantling any chance the Republicans would have to keep the White House. I've got my favorite, John Edwards, but as it stands now, I highly doubt that he'll get the nomination.
Even still, I'm finding it harder to care. Does my vote make a difference if the teams are going to play dirty and rig the results? Why should I bother when all the candidates are just making empty promises in order to gain public favor? Why should I care when whoever gets elected is just going to run into a bunch of roadblocks once they get elected due to all of the partisan infighting and instead of making substantial progress with things that need to be addressed (our health care and education system, social security, reducing our deficit, ending the damn war already), and instead just coming up with a series of lame compromises that would appease the two parties in Washington, but not one single American voter.
Holy shit. This was supposed to be about Rambo. Ok, I'll try and tie the two together. Right now, America is in a "Rambo III" phase, where we just blindly go into other countries, wreck things, and expect to be regarded as heroes. Instead, America should be more like "First Blood". We have the capabilities to fuck shit up, but it should only be used when pushed too far. America should be fixing problems within its own borders rather than worrying about what Iran is doing or whatnot.
Or America could be more like "The Party at Kitty and Stud's" where we all look kinda stoned and just enjoy the fruits of life. Wait, that's Amsterdam. Maybe we could just get drunk and play soccer like in "Victory". Oops, that's Ireland.
I'll stop with the stereotypes now.
It's going to be a long jump down from this soapbox.
