The government doesn’t have any money of its own anyways…….. stealing, printing, or borrowing are its only three options, and you could argue that printing is stealing value.
hmm.. i thought the Ironman movie was about Tony Stark(private companies) that made a living by selling arms to the US military but was kidnapped by the militias and forced to make weapons for them?
I wonder if this is where Obama has ‘found’ the money to overhaul health care? A few more missiles sold to Saudi Arabia (where the alleged hijackers of 9/11 originated and Bush has already sold millions worth too). Hmmmmmm
I wish they would try harder to make it challenging to see the plan.
Does it remain true to the comic? Or does it take the opportunity to subtly propagandize the US military, not as the focus of the movie, but as an opportunity to sell the use of illegal and unethical force in foreign nations in an overtly Pro US occupation? It is just a fluffy movie, yes, but I understand Steph’s point of selling this idea to children and mouth breathers watching.
Iron Man is a film adaptation of the comic Iron Man, which is mostly fictional. I don’t understand why you’re comparing it to the U.S. military and private companies….it’s not supposed to accurately portray reality. It’s supposed to stay true to the comic.
yup, I just trust private enterprise more than government simply because it’s profitable to please the consumer.
And while some of Chomsky’s vids are alright, i don’t think he pays much attention to economics as much as some other folks cus he seems to basically blame Milton Friedman for some of our economics messes, lol.
Any system of power is prone to corruption. The bigger and more powerful they get, the more likely its presence and its influence.
A healthy distrust of both of them seems in order then wouldn’t you agree?
I think you might enjoy reading or watching Noam Chomsky. Grab a book of his or at least check Google video for one of his interviews.
If you are interested in the ethics of big business you will find this man has many valuable insights. Take care.
Interesting, but in the case of monopolies, they usually don’t exist unless there’s government intervention in the market. So these things are a little more intertwined than you might be first led to believe. It’s not like business corrupts government only, or government corrupts business only. It’s a double-edged sword.
This is just one example of the CIA working with weapons manufacturers to do international arms trade. They don’t just wait for opposing factions to kick off and then supply the weapons. In fact often their are no opposing factions until the CIA step in, training and arming mercenary armies to achieve their political objectives. They have no care for the innocent people butchered by the new administrations. So long as their interests are met, policy favorable to internationals and profit.
and bully the public, they were also known to brutalize woman and children. Eventually the people feared the assaults so much that they granted the rebels what they wanted. The UFC land barons where back in the saddle.
I cite this event because it is a clear example of a country trying to free themselves from corporate slavery being ruthlessly crushed by a weapons manufacturer working in hand with an international, lobbying government and utilizing secret service men to get what they want.
But Nixons hands were tied by ethical rules of engagement & public opinion. This is where the CIA stepped in. Operation PBFORTUNE:
Guatemalan rebels were trained in Honduras and backed up with a CIA air contingent of bombers and fighter planes. This army invaded Guatemala in 1954, toppling Arbenzs regime and giving control to a government favorable to the UFC.
It was noted that the CIA trained mercenaries were ruthless power mongers who used their superior US supplied weapons to terrorize
The locals worked for peanuts to export banana’s to America, they were getting screwed and they knew it. Eventually a new leader Arbenz came to power and said enough is enough. He started redistributing the land to the poor who lived on it. The United Fruit Company and its land barons were unhappy. In 1953 the UFC began lobbying the US governement to do something
I understand your reasoning but please also try to understand that it’s in a weapons manufacturers best interest to sell weapons. If their are no immediate buyers then it is also in their interest to manufacture situations that demand weapons.
Please look at the example I gave you before. Wiki for “1954 Guatemalan coup d’état”. In this example you will see the United Fruit Company having a monopoly on banana’s in Guatemala. 90% of the Land in Guatemala was owned by this American company
My point is that even if CERTAIN companies didn’t sell them weapons, they’d still fight and kill each other. Just cus they chose to buy their weapons from someone, doesn’t mean that the business did anything unethical (though obviously, I think in many circumstances, they may have). My point is that you can’t blame just one side and not the other.
Listen, you go ahead and cling to your “where their is a will- to have weapons, their is a way” theory. I’m not going to spoon feed you example after example of historical evidence to prove that international arms trade always involve shady unethical practices. Anyone with half a brain and a bit of research already knows this.
that’s not a good comparison. A more accurate one would be if you got two friends. Then both of them separately go to a knife store and buy a knife and one day end up hurting each other with them after getting in a fight.
So if two of your friends have a dispute, do you then give them both a knife to “stop them from destroying each other”? Or do you think that perhaps that would in fact increase the damage they inflict on one another? I think the answer is obvious. We are not talking nukes here, the weapons sold are USED to kill both militants and innocents.
I think I had better give u an example, look up the history of Guatemala and the United Fruit Company, u will see their is nothing ethical about arms trade.
Those countries are gonna buy weapons anyways no matter what. If a company wants to sell to both sides, then I don’t see a problem with that. You can stop people from destroying each other really. People are always gonna have some reason(s) to kill each other.
I dont think we are on the same page my friend.
Training a rebel army to overthrow a government is a pretty good way to sell weapons, dividing a country and selling arms to both factions not only makes money but gives you a pretty good level of control of the outcome.
depends what you mean by “give someone a reason” cus I think most of the people that buy weapons already have reasons to own them. They don’t need someone to tell them to buy weapons, lol
All three are link co-dependents. Obviously the CIA Jackals sent in to start rebellions and arm mercenary armies will not affiliate themselves with any weapon manufacturer, however it is very much in the weapons manufacturers interest to make arrangements behind the scenes for just this kind of unethical business.
A corporation is made by state charter. That’s the only way to become incorporated. How is this concept so difficult to understand?
The government doesn’t have any money of its own anyways…….. stealing, printing, or borrowing are its only three options, and you could argue that printing is stealing value.
hmm.. i thought the Ironman movie was about Tony Stark(private companies) that made a living by selling arms to the US military but was kidnapped by the militias and forced to make weapons for them?
I wonder if this is where Obama has ‘found’ the money to overhaul health care? A few more missiles sold to Saudi Arabia (where the alleged hijackers of 9/11 originated and Bush has already sold millions worth too). Hmmmmmm
I wish they would try harder to make it challenging to see the plan.
Does it remain true to the comic? Or does it take the opportunity to subtly propagandize the US military, not as the focus of the movie, but as an opportunity to sell the use of illegal and unethical force in foreign nations in an overtly Pro US occupation? It is just a fluffy movie, yes, but I understand Steph’s point of selling this idea to children and mouth breathers watching.
Iron Man is a film adaptation of the comic Iron Man, which is mostly fictional. I don’t understand why you’re comparing it to the U.S. military and private companies….it’s not supposed to accurately portray reality. It’s supposed to stay true to the comic.
yer it made me lmao to what a hoot
lord of war was a “BIT”..more real just a bit lol
but still a good movie but V is still my all time fav
Anyone like a 2nd hand DvD..!?
its a great movie. Everyone go see. Right up there with the dark knight.
yup, I just trust private enterprise more than government simply because it’s profitable to please the consumer.
And while some of Chomsky’s vids are alright, i don’t think he pays much attention to economics as much as some other folks cus he seems to basically blame Milton Friedman for some of our economics messes, lol.
Any system of power is prone to corruption. The bigger and more powerful they get, the more likely its presence and its influence.
A healthy distrust of both of them seems in order then wouldn’t you agree?
I think you might enjoy reading or watching Noam Chomsky. Grab a book of his or at least check Google video for one of his interviews.
If you are interested in the ethics of big business you will find this man has many valuable insights. Take care.
Interesting, but in the case of monopolies, they usually don’t exist unless there’s government intervention in the market. So these things are a little more intertwined than you might be first led to believe. It’s not like business corrupts government only, or government corrupts business only. It’s a double-edged sword.
This is just one example of the CIA working with weapons manufacturers to do international arms trade. They don’t just wait for opposing factions to kick off and then supply the weapons. In fact often their are no opposing factions until the CIA step in, training and arming mercenary armies to achieve their political objectives. They have no care for the innocent people butchered by the new administrations. So long as their interests are met, policy favorable to internationals and profit.
and bully the public, they were also known to brutalize woman and children. Eventually the people feared the assaults so much that they granted the rebels what they wanted. The UFC land barons where back in the saddle.
I cite this event because it is a clear example of a country trying to free themselves from corporate slavery being ruthlessly crushed by a weapons manufacturer working in hand with an international, lobbying government and utilizing secret service men to get what they want.
But Nixons hands were tied by ethical rules of engagement & public opinion. This is where the CIA stepped in. Operation PBFORTUNE:
Guatemalan rebels were trained in Honduras and backed up with a CIA air contingent of bombers and fighter planes. This army invaded Guatemala in 1954, toppling Arbenzs regime and giving control to a government favorable to the UFC.
It was noted that the CIA trained mercenaries were ruthless power mongers who used their superior US supplied weapons to terrorize
The locals worked for peanuts to export banana’s to America, they were getting screwed and they knew it. Eventually a new leader Arbenz came to power and said enough is enough. He started redistributing the land to the poor who lived on it. The United Fruit Company and its land barons were unhappy. In 1953 the UFC began lobbying the US governement to do something
I understand your reasoning but please also try to understand that it’s in a weapons manufacturers best interest to sell weapons. If their are no immediate buyers then it is also in their interest to manufacture situations that demand weapons.
Please look at the example I gave you before. Wiki for “1954 Guatemalan coup d’état”. In this example you will see the United Fruit Company having a monopoly on banana’s in Guatemala. 90% of the Land in Guatemala was owned by this American company
My point is that even if CERTAIN companies didn’t sell them weapons, they’d still fight and kill each other. Just cus they chose to buy their weapons from someone, doesn’t mean that the business did anything unethical (though obviously, I think in many circumstances, they may have). My point is that you can’t blame just one side and not the other.
Listen, you go ahead and cling to your “where their is a will- to have weapons, their is a way” theory. I’m not going to spoon feed you example after example of historical evidence to prove that international arms trade always involve shady unethical practices. Anyone with half a brain and a bit of research already knows this.
that’s not a good comparison. A more accurate one would be if you got two friends. Then both of them separately go to a knife store and buy a knife and one day end up hurting each other with them after getting in a fight.
So if two of your friends have a dispute, do you then give them both a knife to “stop them from destroying each other”? Or do you think that perhaps that would in fact increase the damage they inflict on one another? I think the answer is obvious. We are not talking nukes here, the weapons sold are USED to kill both militants and innocents.
I think I had better give u an example, look up the history of Guatemala and the United Fruit Company, u will see their is nothing ethical about arms trade.
Those countries are gonna buy weapons anyways no matter what. If a company wants to sell to both sides, then I don’t see a problem with that. You can stop people from destroying each other really. People are always gonna have some reason(s) to kill each other.
I dont think we are on the same page my friend.
Training a rebel army to overthrow a government is a pretty good way to sell weapons, dividing a country and selling arms to both factions not only makes money but gives you a pretty good level of control of the outcome.
depends what you mean by “give someone a reason” cus I think most of the people that buy weapons already have reasons to own them. They don’t need someone to tell them to buy weapons, lol
All three are link co-dependents. Obviously the CIA Jackals sent in to start rebellions and arm mercenary armies will not affiliate themselves with any weapon manufacturer, however it is very much in the weapons manufacturers interest to make arrangements behind the scenes for just this kind of unethical business.