Resistance (204)

[Easter Lily]

Well that little social construct is a result of sheer biology. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that double standards are in any way right or justified, but this is one of the few that weren't simply created by boys so we could have more fun or get paid better. The idea of a promiscuous woman being frowned upon while a promiscuous man being applauded stems from how our reproductive systems work.

Let's say you have a group of a particular species which requires 9 months to gestate and the result is usually one offspring, occassionally two, very rarely more. A single female can only be impregnanted so many times in the course of a decade while a single male can impregnante a massive number of females over the same time period. In the end, the sexually active female won't contribute to the species (in terms of population growth) as much as the sexually active male.


I realize there are a lot of girls on this forum so I hope this doesn't offend anyone And again, I'm not saying these double standards are right to keep around this day and age, my point is just that they're not unbased. There's a reason for this double standard and we must all remember that instinct will win out over society every time.

No... I'm not offended... even a little amused. An interesting theory if somewhat inconsistent with what I understand of human behaviour.
If polygamy is the dominant ideal of human society, I'd say that would be some foundation to this theory. Besides, polygamy is expensive... only the rich can afford it. But we're not just biological creatures, we are rational, moral creatures. We make choices and we seem to have a preference for monogamy and it isn't all about saving money either.

Incidentally, my grandfather on my father's side had two wives... at the same time... he was fruitful and multiplied greatly but my grandmother, his second wife was a business transaction, pure and simple... If you ask me, it's more about position, power structure and cultural acceptance.

[Liebestraume]

Overcome? Advancement of human civilization has come about because of our instincts, not in spite of them. ...

I believe you conveniently left out an important qualifier -- "baser" ... Big difference!

I should rephrase my comment, though. I don't mean to say that in every situation primal instinct will direct someone's actions more than social constructs but in the grand scheme of things we're acting basically exactly as we would without our advanced society. Wars are fought over territory and to ensure the survival and growth of a specific pack/tribe, just as wolves do. Murder and rape still occur frequently and while it would make sense that punishments would deter such actions, since those two are very basic parts of nature, primal instinct wins out.

Sure, all that stuff still goes on; but I don't think it could all be blamed on "animal instinct." Human beings are capable of higher functions and individual choices.

Going with your line of reasoning ... since human societies are at least one-step above wolf-packs, wouldn't that mean that we -- or at least some of us -- had evolved beyond Neanderthals? Or are you actually saying human societies are no different from wolf-packs? If the latter, I'd suggest you add animal husbandry as "real world evidence" to support your original argument. Hey, at least it's a contemporary "example"!

[Easter Lily]

Having difficulty posting.

Reviewing the thread, I see I missed Keshou's post. My apologies.



Nor am I going to change your mind. The point of these in depth discussions are not to change people's minds, at least not for the people posting. (The ego gets invested, after all.) The point is to enrich the understanding. If you say you find the characters complex in response to my observation that they are black-and-white, then I try to see if if there's a misunderstanding or where the error is.

I allege heroes are written white, you counter they are written with flaws. Well, I never meant to imply that the heroes are written like Dudley Do-right. But in BSG the heroes are written so that any "flaws" are 1.)not actually flaws or 2.)carefully balanced with virtues and/or good intentions or 3.)flaws without genuine consequences, making them merely occasions for cheap thrills or 4.)only certain kinds of flaws, which are almost never genuinely offensive and 5.)the way the scenes are written just makes them seem nicer.

And that is a problem?

Ah... I get it... Let me see... you believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to write these characters. That these characters should be archetypes... follow a series of prescribed rules and should invoke certain fixed responses from us.

(There's a lass from Australia who was convicted of drug smuggling in Indonesia. The media kicked up a big stink about it considering that they are rather quiet about Australians elsewhere in the world who are also being detained) and the country is sharply divided over her guilt. Some believe her to be innocent and some think she is guilty. The media seems to have taken her side but not everyone seems convinced.)

I think I'll stick to speaking in general terms because a) I'm extremely tired and b) fundamentally your assumptions and mine aren't even on the same page, so the examples you use don't speak to me in the same way that it does to you. I don't watch a show to see if it fits in with Northrop Frye's or Aristotle's theories on narrative or FR Leavis' work on characterization... I watch a show because I love a good story. Yup... it's as simple as that...

If you don't mind me saying, in this day and age, it's a little naive to still think that writers in general don't manipulate their characters to make them a tad more sympathetic when they may or may not "deserve" to be. It's done all the time and it's called "point of view". Actors, writers, directors constantly talk about this obvious manipulation constantly in interviews..."This character is a bad guy but we've tried to make him more sympathetic" Etc... etc... etc... In fact, I've just been watching the BSG Lowdown and Tricia Helfer says exactly that about Six. Isn't it every writer's dream to push the envelope... to do something different...? *shrugs shoulders* I thought it was anyway...

[FeloniousMonk]

If polygamy is the dominant ideal of human society

See that's my point, it's ideal for human biology, not for society. We assign moral codes to our own nature and even those are due to our instincts for survival. Why is murder a crime? Because it's evil? There's nothing inherently evil about it since the animal kingdom is full of it; many higher carnivours kill for sport, even among their own. We assign a moral value to murder because our instincts tell us that any action which decreases the population is bad for the survival of the species. Although, many would argue, and I'd be inclined to agree in many cases, that survival of the fittest demands that we allow it to happen so that only the strongest and most capable of fending off attack will pass on their genes. In those cases, our morals and ideals intervene...you're right, we are rational creatures and somehow we've deemed it a necessity to protect those that wouldn't survive in the harshness of the wild.

On that same token...we now have six billion people in the world and in time the planet's natural resources won't be able to sustain the population. Interesting, no?

Also, technically humans are polygamous. With a few rare exceptions, most humans do not mate for life. Truly monogamous creatures will find one mate and if that mate dies, rarely do they seek out another. In our society we date and date until we find the person to marry. Sometimes we decide that mate doesn't really fit the bill and go back to dating to marry again. It's kind of funny that different primates have different social structures. We, like chimps, are violent and polygamous. Gorillas are far more docile and monogamous.

but as I've said before, I may have no idea what I'm talking about

[FeloniousMonk]

I believe you conveniently left out an important qualifier -- "baser" ... Big difference!

Sure, all that stuff still goes on; but I don't think it could all be blamed on "animal instinct." Human beings are capable of higher functions and individual choices.

Going with your line of reasoning ... since human societies are at least one-step above wolf-packs, wouldn't that mean that we -- or at least some of us -- had evolved beyond Neanderthals? Or are you actually saying human societies are no different from wolf-packs? If the latter, I'd suggest you add animal husbandry as "real world evidence" to support your original argument. Hey, at least it's a contemporary "example"!

Oh we've certainly evolved beyond that, but like you pointed out, it's our most basic instincts that drive us. Many believe we've lost most of our higher instincts, those that give animals seemingly extra senses beyond the usual five, because we're self aware and our conscious mind gets in the way.

We're certainly different from wolf packs, just saying that we share many of the same traits. I'm not arguing that we've evolved far beyond anything else on the planet and abilities such as cognitive thought, reasoning, and higher communication haven't dramatically changed the way we interact with nature; we're definately advanced creatures. I just think a lot of people tend to forget that we're still animals and we still have many of the same urges and desires.

and not all of them are bad

[FeloniousMonk]

In "Fragged," the chief was arguing with the lieutenant about the necessity to attack the Cylons. Sort of, he didn't actually have any point to make other than it was dangerous. The lieutenant tells the chief to stay cool. Now, the chief wasn't actually thinking, so trying to think it through coolly was good advice. Yet it was the lieutenant who was written as agitated and the chief who was written as cool. And there's another one of the things I mean when I say characters are written black and white.

I didn't notice this post until just now, but I wanted to address this. How was the chief not actually thinking? Crashdown's plan wasn't very thought out; the guy was an officer simply because he was a pilot. He had no leadership skills beyond what he learned in a classroom. The chief acted in ways that implied he'd seen combat. A good officer (at least one with as little experience in the field as Crashdown) would defer judgement or at least ask the advice of his senior NCO.

Of course Crashdown was written as agitated; I doubt the guy had ever been shot at, outside of a Raptor, in his life before that day. The chief was cool headed and it made perfect sense in the context of the story as well as the individual characters.

I do see your point on how they're written black and white, especially with all the others. But you have to realize that the writers have to appeal to the audiences desires as well as their own creativities. If they were to write these characters as truly flawed as they could be, fewer people would watch the show. They're written with those types of flaws because they're the heroes; no one watches a tv show to see a bunch of people that are just like them and their friends. Even reality shows give horribly inaccurate (and horribly acted in most cases ) examples of flawed characters.

Yes, compared to real life they're very black and white. But compared to any other science fiction show in the US? You never see this kind of thing on Star Trek, even B5 barely scratched the surface of this. Firefly and Farscape were both too focused on the bigger message to spend time on real flaws and Stargate...in terms of character realness it's just Star Trek with less technobabble. BSG may not be the true reflection of reality that the PR team would like reviewers and the audience to believe, but it's a hell of a lot more than we've seen in other sci-fi shows and even beats out many other dramas. I see more character realism in BSG than in any of the CSIs, Law and Orders, etc. To be honest the only show I've ever watched that has truly and honestly flawed lead characters is Rescue Me.

[/two cents]

[Liebestraume]

... but like you pointed out, it's our most basic instincts that drive us. ..

Say what?

It would appear that "abilities such as cognitive thought, reasoning, and higher communication haven't dramatically" improved our (i.e., your and/or my) understanding, either. By "overcoming our baser instinct" I meant (the collective) we managed to rise above qualities such as cruelty, treachery, or greed -- base, as in lacking of higher qualities of mind or spirit; not basic. In fact, I have been, and still am, maintaining we are not entirely driven by our basic instincts.

Not all of us all the time, but some of us some of the time.

To bring this discussion back on topic, I agree with LoneStar that BSG's challenge of gender bias in pupolar culture is one of its many strengths. Though the impromptu anthropology lesson is very much appreciated, please forgive me if I don't share the Neanderthal sentimentality. Perhaps remember where these double-standards came from should also remind us how useless they are in this day and age.

[LoneStar1836]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers with a statement that, in my opinion, is an example of a double-standard in our society, but I can't accept some outmoded reason for it's continued existence.

Anyway, to get the thread back on topic……….

All right. You have my parole. When I'm on duty, I'll make no attempt to free her or sow insurrection among the crew…… And when I'm not on duty, I'll report directly back to this cell.

So does anyone feel like Lee violated his parole and thus his word of honor by conspiring to help Roslin escape?

In his podcast, RDM said that he thinks he walked a fine line with Lee in regards to that. If I remember right, RDM said that he didn’t think Lee had broken his word in regards to his parole, but I listened to it several days ago and can’t really say for sure what his answer was, if he even had one.

I don’t know. I find it difficult to say that Lee didn’t go against his word. True he probably never conversed about it or took any direct actions to get the plan in order while on duty, but to me just the act of conspiring to free Roslin, whether on duty or off, breaks the parole pact for me. It’s not like Tigh said “when on duty, don’t even think about helping her, but when off duty, sure go right ahead.” (Course I just have to overlook Tigh leaving those two in adjoining cells. That was another stupid move on his part on his long list of bad decisions.)

I guess technically he didn’t because you could say that like the conversations he had with Dee were while he was being escorted back to the brig so he was off-duty and in transit. He must have been getting Billy and/or Corporal Venner to pass notes or verbally relay messages to people involved in helping them escape.

I find it to be a fine line whether or not Lee, in principle, honored his word. By literal definition of what he promised Tigh, I think he kept his word, but by doing what he did off duty, he broke the spirit of the agreement.

Again, I admire Lee for standing up for what he believes is right, but I disagree with what he did in this episode.

[Easter Lily]

To bring this discussion back on topic, I agree with LoneStar that BSG's challenge of gender bias in pupolar culture is one of its many strengths. Though the impromptu anthropology lesson is very much appreciated, please forgive me if I don't share the Neanderthal sentimentality. Perhaps remember where these double-standards came from should also remind us how useless they are in this day and age.

My problem with the "Neanderthal" sentimentality is the assumption that our ancestors were more primitive than we were... that somehow we are rather more enlightened now than they ever were. In some areas yes, we may have advanced further than they have but there's a joke that I often throw at my friends and that is, "we are only rediscovering what the Chinese have forgotten."
I have a huge problem with the evolutionary model when explaining history... (in fact I have a huge problem with the evolutionary model period... but that's neither here nor there) Biology can only go so far in explaining certain aspects of human life but biology cannot give us the whole picture and that is where other branches of knowledge such as archaeology and history comes in.

Back on the topic: (Again!)
Actually LS... if you notice my earlier review... I did mention that I was rather disappointed that Lee reneged on his parole... I don't know what RDM meant when he said Lee was treading a fine line because as far as I'm concerned... he crossed the line... He may not have repeated his mutinous act but he did conspire to help free her. After thinking it through, I now think he committed the lesser of two evil acts by escaping rather than destabilizing the ship further by going against Tigh directly. That would have forced the crew on the Galactica to take sides which probably wouldn't have been very productive either.

Okay... I admit to having watched too much Hornblower... but when a parole is given... a man's reputation is on the line and as you say... the spirit of the agreement is as important or more so than just adhering to the letter of it. It's about being trustworthy... despite the circumstances... not because it is an easy thing to do...
The only excuse I can offer up for his actions is I supposed he felt the situation was desperate and warranted some action. It interests me that Dee was trying to hint to him that he should take command of the ship and the bright side is that a lesser man might have tried and wreaked more havoc for the fleet.

[LoneStar1836]

Sorry, I forgot about that. Didn’t think to look. I figured since I indirectly caused the thread to stray OT, then I’d try to get it back on topic.

*sigh* I was going to try to watch Hornblower when I was over in Texas because we have satellite over there and I think the Biography Channel was running the movies while I was there and I don’t get that channel here, but I never did make the effort to say “well I want to watch that, so can we?”. Hopefully A&E will get a whim and air them again sometime soon.…..

After thinking it through, I now think he committed the lesser of two evil acts by escaping rather than destabilizing the ship further by going against Tigh directly. That would have forced the crew on the Galactica to take sides which probably wouldn't have been very productive either.

Good point there, but I still feel that he had a duty to the military and to himself to relieve Col. Tigh from command. Tigh was putting Galactica and the people under his command in danger because he was intoxicated and had impaired judgment. Just like one should feel that it is his/her duty to take the keys from a friend who has been drinking, Lee should have felt the responsibility to take the keys from Tigh, even if by force. Thank goodness Adama is back on his feet. Tigh would have drunk the fleet dry……

I’d like to think that Lee would have had considerable support if he had taken that action, but I don’t know how the crew would have felt about Capt. Kelly assuming command then. People might have liked that guy even less than Tigh. How? I don’t know, but it’s possible. I don’t think Lee would have been in a position to oust Tigh and then put himself in command unless he does out rank Kelly by time in grade.

I can see how Lee putting himself in command might would divide the crew because after all he had just gone against his father’s orders and then put a gun to Tigh’s head, but there are probably plenty of people aboard who have wished they could do that…..but going against the Old Man, even if you are his son, might not have garnered him complete support. I don’t know. I still think Lee ousting Tigh would have been better for everyone, and I think he should have felt obligated to do so. BUT....then we don’t get the big ongoing conflict we have now complete with all the angsty stuff between Lee and his father.

[Easter Lily]

I can see how Lee putting himself in command might would divide the crew because after all he had just gone against his father’s orders and then put a gun to Tigh’s head, but there are probably plenty of people aboard who have wished they could do that…..but going against the Old Man, even if you are his son, might not have garnered him complete support. I don’t know. I still think Lee ousting Tigh would have been better for everyone, and I think he should have felt obligated to do so. BUT....then we don’t get the big ongoing conflict we have now complete with all the angsty stuff between Lee and his father.

That Lee is gained a great deal of respect on the Galactica, I have no doubt. He has had to work for it. But it would probably be from those who work the most closely with him. It was interesting that they showed his pilots clamouring for his return to the card table which indicated to me that some sections of the crew, at least would have taken his side, if he had decided to unseat Tigh. But perhaps, out of respect to his father, Lee made the decision that he did. He did say to Col Tigh in the previous episode that "this is still his ship".
What I'm mostly unhappy about is his throwing his lot with Roslin and his collaborating with Zarek. But that's for another thread...
I'm just wondering... out loud mostly... if they're not trying just a bit too hard in getting Lee to be his "own man". To distinguish him from his father. Do a bit of good o'l fashion rebellion and create some good o'l fashion family drama. I've been quite impressed with how they had been developing the father and son relationship but I should have known that it was too good too last...

[plot mechanic]

Easter Lily, sorry for the delay.

One clarification: I don't think everyone should dislike Starbuck. I just have trouble believing that Tigh would be the only one who dislikes Starbuck, while everyone else loves and admires her. That may be "point of view," but it feels like writer manipulation to me.

Another clarification: The chief/lieutenant scene was definitely written to force the conclusion that the chief was wise and the lieutenant was incompetent. The chief is written as a nice guy in the first place, so the initial impulse is rate his opinion higher. When Baltar shoots the lieutenant, they initiated combat, with one fewer soldier but without the advantage of surprise. They still succeed in destroying the radar dish, while under attack by the Cylons, no less! The rescue by the armed search party was a sound hope from the second they heard the ship. In other words, the facts of the story show that the lieutenant was thinking soundly!

I can think of at least three senses in which the survivors "owed" the dead soldiers. They "owed" them revenge. You could very sensibly argue that this is letting emotions get the better of you. But that is not what the chief said! Really, when the chief said he didn't know how they were relevant, I thought he was being dishonest and insolent. Because, one other sense that the lieutenant "owed" the survivors was to succeed at the mission, so that their deaths could be counted as necessary sacrifices. The lieutenant couldn't talk about this without talking about his failures, real or perceived. The third sense in which they "owed" the survivors, the one that the chief simply ignores, is living up to their example as soldiers doing their duty. Which means, trying to save the search mission from the Cylon missiles! It is true that sitting on his ass is safer for the chief. It's true that the lieutenant simply pulls rank instead of pointing this out, whether objectively or perhaps emotionally accusing the chief of cowardice. The chief's convenient refusal (for him) to look at the big picture really does suggest a reason why he's not officer material.

More on what I mean by black and white in another post in the thread.

pm

PS Everybody sees things differently. When the chief was explaining the lieutenants stupidly literal copying of the order format he learned in command school, I wondered: How does the chief know what they teach in command school. Did he flunk out? Or just check into it?

[plot mechanic]

Sharky, a clarification: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

When, in these times, a television show imagines a world in which 1.)evil religious fanatics aim to exterminate humanity for no explainable reason; 2.)it is necessary to "torture" these fanatics; 3.)said fanatics only appear human, but are truly inhuman 4.)their religion leads to genocide; 5.)"our" leader's religion (so far) leads to genuinely prophetic dreams 5.)the desperate exigencies of the struggle requires autocratic "leadership" from the military; 6.)despite the alleged worldshaking holocaust that changed everything, life actually continues pretty much like before (as supposedly 9/11 changed everything, except, honestly, it didn't.)...I smell a rat.

As near as I can tell, the original BSG was basically Brigham Young leading the Mormons to Utah, which is a very different animal from the new one. I really don't see any effort to recreate the old show (I must admit I don't really care about that, though.) Since it's not designed to capture old fans, I have to wonder if the show wasn't "revived" as it's premises could be tweaked to fit current events. Robots as religious fanatics is a truly preposterous idea. Robots programmed to be religious fanatics might make a serious scifi drama, but BSG simply is not serious. Sky TV from the UK cofinanced BSG. Is that a Rupert Murdoch outfit, or owned by a similar type?

Further, BSG just isn't written very well. This is my judgment, which should go without saying. No doubt my distaste for its underlying messages makes its writing flaws more noticeable. But when I can force myself to watch, which I have for roughly the same kinds of reasons I force myself to listen to government spokesmen talk, I fear that the only real appeal of BSG is jingo fantasy. The moronic reviews that praise BSG as drama (hey, Matt Roush actually works for Murdoch!) reinforce this fear. Look, BSG has women whose spines light up while they're having sex! Women Cylons roam around naked, in packs! People are constantly holding guns to someone's head! Woman torturer! Has it not occurred to people that this sort of thing is usually despised, instead of praised? What's different now? I fear the difference is that BSG fits the government line.

So, it should be obvious why I started posting. Your politics may be different (or may not,) but it's not some ego thing.

But, happily, the posters in this thread don't seem to be seeing BSG this way. At this point, I guess I'm posting to finish what I started. Not a profound reason, to be sure.

pm

[plot mechanic]

Liebestraume, skipping over the science parts to the characterizations, you may see Adama's coup as an overreaction to Starbuck's seduction. Certainly there is no rational explanation given for Adama's refusal to try to find Earth, nor is a coup the only way to handle the situation, even given that Adama believes he was right. These reasons are why I agree that essentially Adama started a civil war because he was jealous. And because he has despised civilians from the beginning. That is decidedly flawed.

But the show has already spent multiple episodes making sure that Tigh takes the blame! I don't know how much more whitewash of a character you could want! Adama will not be walking through the corridors and overhear some joke about him and Starbuck. It would be amazing if anyone, including Apollo, Starbuck or Roslin ever alluded to his true motivations. The show is already written as if his motivation was some sort of rationalism about religious revelation. To repeat, there is no way (shown) that Adama can know that "Earth" is a mythical, instead of historical, part of scripture. And that's a whitewash too. As well as making the whole miserable storyline fake drama to boot.

I was quite literal when I said I didn't see how Baltar could learn anything unless the revelation from Boomer was somehow supposed to be true. If it's not true, Baltar just learns that the Boomereither loves or pretends to love Tyrol (and will lie as part of that pretense.) I don't see how that's useful to him. However, if somehow Boomer's admission is true, Baltar learns that Boomer's love can lead to some actions at least against programming, i.e., is genuine love. Now that might be useful.

I still think the scene is basically gibberish. There's no way Baltar could know Boomer "knows" the number, or know if she's telling the truth. I suggest the plain meaning of the scene is intentional, stupid as that may be. But it's sensational gibberish, thrilling the viewers who like torture and violence, and it's supposed to develop Baltar's ascent to manliness. That notion still strikes me as both silly and nasty.

You don't believe that any of the main characters should actually dramatize the supposed extermination of humanity (which is pretty moot since the last episode undoes that!) Nor do you believe that Cylon "humanity" (nature, extent, lack of, imperfection, perfection, etc.) should be a main theme. I don't quite see the point of BSG's aspirations to real drama, even the scifi type, if it doesn't. But if that's how you feel, it would certainly lead you to rate BSG higher than I do. I don't see any point to belaboring either view, now that they're clarified. These fundamental disagreements are irreconcilable.

Had Roslin "sticked up for herself," whose blood do you think would have been shed? Ty's? Lee's? Or that of some innocent marine, whose worst possible offense was perhaps misguided loyalty to their sworn duty? "Give me Liberty, or give me death" is a fine and noble ambition, so long as the death one dares is one's own.

And, if a cause could be demoralized -- to the point of never being able to make a comeback -- by the apparent failing of a single leader, then perhaps the said cause indeed deserve its fate.

When Roslin initially refused to surrender to men with guns, she was daring her own death. When Apollo held the gun to Tigh's head, she could have simply said, "Do not fire the first shot!" As for that innocent Marine, how could he have been more innocent that the people shot down in "Resistance?" Are you implying that the protestors were not innocent?

My point is not just that Roslin failed. My point is that she surrendered. And I must insist that many movements can recover from defeats or other failures of the leaders. But nothing, nothing is more demoralizing than surrender. The series would have it that someone organized an incomplete boycott. Whoever did that is the true leader, now. I doubt that the writers of the show are sophisticated enough to realized this. But you will see.

pm

[FeloniousMonk]

PS Everybody sees things differently. When the chief was explaining the lieutenants stupidly literal copying of the order format he learned in command school, I wondered: How does the chief know what they teach in command school. Did he flunk out? Or just check into it?

Were it not for the likely requirement that pilots be officers (as it is in our armed forces) it's doubtful Crashdown would have ever made through any kind of officer training. The chief probably knows about it because it's probably a common course of action. Remember, they've been at relative peace for the past few decades and most of them have never seen combat. From the chief's actions in going back for the medkit it's readily obvious that if he hasn't seen combat then at the very least he's learned from his training a lot better than Crashdown.

The plan worked because of luck and had the Raptor not been right there to save them it would've ended badly. The chief could see that the plan was flawed. In the end it worked despite being a man down and losing the element of surprise but sheer stupid luck does not mean it was a sound plan to begin with. Crashdown orders a scared young girl, a mechanic, to draw fire while he plans to hang back and cover...that's not leader material right there. He was written as being agitated because in a real situation that's likely what would've happened. Pilots are used to combat with other pilots, not with ground troops.