aeroripper

Trailer:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Synopsis:

"The film moves beyond the headlines of various American military operations to the deeper questions of why - Why does America fight? What are the forces - political, economic, idealogical - that drive us to fight against an ever-changing enemy?"


Thoughts?

TychoCelchuuu

The New Yorker said it was a bad movie, which means it was a good movie.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

ChIck3nL3gz

If I had an actual choice of where my money was going to be spent; I'd put it all in military research.

I'll probably go see this movie. Its either going to do one of two things. Piss me off or make me think.

__________________

[volun][drill]
I'm cannon fodder.
Irreg's Wiki
Rules and SOPs

Dirtboy

I think that any movie that is Not Biased is a good one. Unlike the Micheal Moore Doc...this one shows both reasons why a nation goes to war. Excellent post.

__________________
|TG-6th|Dirtboy

aeroripper

I forgot I have to say something provactive to get the thread started, I saw the movie tonight and it came across to me as:

America is (inadvertently?) becoming the new Rome, and wants to remain the sole superpower of the world through global military supremacy, but this will in the end supress the ideals and democratic institutions our country was founded upon.

leejo

The two best movie reviews I've ever seen in tne New Yorker were for Kiss Of The Spider Woman wherein we see Raul Julia tenderly cornhole William Hurt in prison in drag, and Cast Away in which Tom Hanks grows a beard and talks to a vollyball for 90 minutes.

Whee!

leejo

I think the comparison to Rome is inevitable, but we also have some other major changes taking place that make me doubt that we will go down Rome's path. I think that the nation-state is showing signs of wear and tear as travel and markets are now so highly international. Job markets are international, "social justice" issues are now international, etc., etc.

I'm not smart enough to see what model will replace the nation-state but I think it will emerge after a period of widespread violence, as most major social changes do, and that the USA will play a large role in its creation. The looming showdown with China, or the transnational terrorist threats, or some combination of those and other issues may spark the change.

Personally, I love the military industrial complex. If the federal government wants to spend money to spark the economy, that's the right place to spend, IMO.

USN_Squid

The Jarecki brothers are pretty famously far-left in their views and presentations of ideas. Eugene Jarecki considers the US to be Imperialistic which I disagree with. He believes that the war on terrorism is just made up to support the capitalistic ventures of those that benefit from the complex which I disagree with. Do we have a military industrial complex? Yes and I don't think it's a bad thing when monitored properly with effective accountability. I don't know how a Country like the US could survive without it. Is there cronyism and corruption in the system? Of course there is. On balance I think we do incredibly well keeping it in check when compared to other countries.

The movie is a bit of a Moore type mockumentary. The movie shows a speech by Eisenhower that is creatively edited to give the impression of a warning to the future of the military/industrial complex. Which it is in a sense, but unfortunately the film doesn't include parts of the speech that support the need for such a development. Here's the entire speech if you want to see those parts. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html

He also uses some fudgy statistics ala Moore:
"Today the US spends more on defense than all other parts of the federal budget combined"

Actually, the total federal budget is 2.5 tril. and defense spending is 447bil which is 17.4%.

__________________

RandomGuy

If the gov't wants to spend money to defend the country then they should spend it on defense but if the goal is to put money into the (domestic) economy then it should be spent on (domestic) infrastructure.

AMosely

I'm interested in seeing this film, and I am very interested in the topic of the military-industrial complex and whether it is good for America. Actually, the question we are facing today deals more with the privitization of war - the increased use of subcontractors to handle everything from security to food. Will the military someday be privately owned? Is it already?

Eisenhower's 1961 speech on the subject remains very poignant. I'll post an excerpt that I find pretty compelling:

Note that last line, and ask yourself how well you think your government is stacking up. Any film that explores these questions is worth watching.

leejo

Who do you think develops and builds defense systems? Those two goals aren't mutually exclusive.

xTYBALTx

I think what he's saying is that he'd rather see money spent on domestic infrastucture than on uneeded weapons systems.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

leejo

Sure, and I'd rather see the money spent on weapons systems than un-needed domestic programs. Let's have a Big Dig for every town!

If you really want to see cronyism and corruption, start up a "domestic program".

If the money isn't needed for a weapons system, then how about we just let it stay in our respective pockets?

I think the best way the fed can help the economy is by getting out of the way - cut taxes. But if it must "help" by spending a few hundred billion of our dollars, then I like to see it invested in future technologies. The military is usually a decade ahead of the private sector in that area.

xTYBALTx

But this isn't a discussion about whether or how much the government should tax us, it's about how it should use the money it does tax us for.

While I think we can all agree that a certain amount - a very large amount, in fact - should rightly be appropriated for the military, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the amount we spend right now and think it could stand being cut significantly and diverted elsewhere if tax cuts are not an option.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Steeler

Or at least used to fund the resources we actually need, such as soldiers, body armor, ground vehicles, construction and communications systems rather than Cold War relic programs and pie-in-the-sky advanced weapons systems. The Iraq operations are so dependent on contingency funds and private contracting partly because so much of our defense budget is going to contractors and projects being kept alive by generals and congresspeople with a vested interest in their funding. THAT's abuse of the military-industrial complex.

__________________