Why We Fight Movie: Must-Watch Eye-Opening Film

[Cyrus]

I just finished watching the movie tonight. Man, all I can say is that you *MUST* go out and rent this movie and watch it. Amazing stuff! It will open your eyes to what eisenhower predicted in terms of the American Military Industrial complex.

We are becoming the Romans, aye carmba!

 

[Evo]

Oh, I thought this thread was about you, pengwuino & yomamma.

 

[Cyrus]

Hardy har har har...

Here is the link if you want to see their website.

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

If anyone else has seen it, you will know what I mean when I say you must go out and rent it.

 

[Tojen]

I haven't seen the film, just the trailer, but I would dispute it on one point: This started long before the Second World War, the scale is just bigger now. In case you haven't heard of Smedley Butler, here are a few quotes from him:

"I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street."

"The trouble is that when American dollars earn only six percent over here, they get restless and go overseas to get 100 percent … the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

Smedley Butler was a much-decorated U.S. Marine who became Major General at the age of 48. Also from Butler:

In “Time of Peace,” Common Sense, Nov. 1935:

"Our exploits against the American Indian, the Filipinos, the Mexicans, and against Spain are on a par with the campaigns of Genghis Khan, the Japanese in Manchuria and the African attack of Mussolini. No country has ever declared war on us before we first obliged them with that gesture. Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war."

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler.html

 

[Mickey]

Good one, Evo.

cyrus, the full audio recording of that Eisenhower speech is online somewhere, and I recommend listening to it. When I heard it, I was surprised at how little time he dovoted to the military part, and how much time he spent on his dream for a America to be a good Christian nation filled with good Christian people or something. It's almost like the words "military industrial complex" were just a sidenote to support his broader ecumenical position.

The Romans were becoming a Christian state too, right before they fell. :/

I'm not trying to defend the excesses of militarization, but what Eisenhower said in the rest of the speech does not inspire me to think that he had some fantastic insight. The number of people who say their religion is "no religion" is always rising, and it's the fastest growing religious category in the US. Eisenhower would have seen this as the real nightmare, I think.

 

[Cyrus]

I haven't seen the film, just the trailer, but I would dispute it on one point: This started long before the Second World War, the scale is just bigger now. In case you haven't heard of Smedley Butler, here are a few quotes from him:



Smedley Butler was a much-decorated U.S. Marine who became Major General at the age of 48. Also from Butler:

Great post Tojen, your post is by no means in contradiction with the overall message of the movie.

 

[Cyrus]

Good one, Evo.

cyrusabdollahi, the full audio recording of that Eisenhower speech is online somewhere, and I recommend listening to it. When I heard it, I was surprised at how little time he dovoted to the military part, and how much time he spent on his dream for a America to be a good Christian nation filled with good Christian people or something. It's almost like the words "military industrial complex" were just a sidenote to support his broader ecumenical position.

The Romans were becoming a Christian state too, right before they fell. :/

I'm not trying to defend the excesses of militarization, but what Eisenhower said in the rest of the speech does not inspire me to think that he had some fantastic insight. The number of people who say their religion is "no religion" is always rising, and it's the fastest growing religious category in the US. Eisenhower would have seen this as the real nightmare, I think.

Well, what do you mean by insight? The man was a five star general before he was president. The movie even quotes him as saying "god help us when we have a president who does not understand the military as well as I do."

As for the religious part, I think that's debatable. There was not this Christian right movement at the time.

 

[russ_watters]

We are becoming the Romans, aye carmba!

Can you explain that comparison? How are we becoming the Romans?

 

[russ_watters]

I did especially like the comment in the trailer on 725 bases in 130 countries followed by Rummy saying something like 'numbers can be distracting'. We've had the discussion before about what those numbers really mean (subtract embassies and 10-man liaison posts and how many does that leave you?). So it makes me wonder: is the producer of the film making fun of the people who see it?

I heard a review of a Michael Moore film once (can't remember which one) where the writer called it a "mocumentary", where the purpose is to mock and insult the audience into accepting his point, without consideration for the truth. He wasn't really sure if Moore believed his own point or not, but that isn't really relevant: the purpose of the movie is to make him rich. Its like Howard Stern: shock people into watching, but don't really show them anything of value. That's how the trailer strikes me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary

Mockumentary, a portmanteau of mock documentary (also fictional documentary or false documentary), is a film and TV genre, or a single work of the genre. The mockumentary is presented as if it were a documentary, though it is not factual. It is a commonly used medium for parody and satire.

The twist of it is, of course, that the numbers are all factually true - but they are a distraction. They are meant to overwhealm a person into suspending critical thought and succombing to shock.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's how the trailer strikes me.

Trailers can be a VERY unreliable indicator of a movie. The trailers are created by people who have nothing to do with the movie, and have completely different sensibilities. They are marketers. They create a trailer that they think will sell a movie. But that does not mean the trailer is representative of that movie.

This is particularly true of movies where the concepts are more subtle and complex than can be portrayed in 30 seconds of action with snippets of pithy dialogue.

I once saw a trailer that portrayed a movie as a romantic feel-good story for six weeks or so before opening. Then, in the last few weeks, they ran a different trailer that made it look like an wild action film (so the boyfriends would give in and take their girls). You'd have never known it was the same movie.

 

[kyleb]

Good one, Evo.

cyrusabdollahi, the full audio recording of that Eisenhower speech is online somewhere, and I recommend listening to it. When I heard it, I was surprised at how little time he dovoted to the military part, and how much time he spent on his dream for a America to be a good Christian nation filled with good Christian people or something. It's almost like the words "military industrial complex" were just a sidenote to support his broader ecumenical position.

The Romans were becoming a Christian state too, right before they fell. :/

Eisenhower's speech is an attempt to appeal to good Christian people to take a stand against our military industrial complex, but dispite his efforts many Christians work to do exactly the opposite.

I'm not trying to defend the excesses of militarization, but what Eisenhower said in the rest of the speech does not inspire me to think that he had some fantastic insight. The number of people who say their religion is "no religion" is always rising, and it's the fastest growing religious category in the US. Eisenhower would have seen this as the real nightmare, I think.

What grounds do you have to suggest Eisenhower would share your detest for our increasing non-religious population?

 

[Tojen]

Great post Tojen, your post is by no means in contradiction with the overall message of the movie.

That's right, it wasn't meant as a contradiction, just to show that the American military has been used for the financial benefit of a few good capitalists long before WW II. Now they have the mightiest military machine ever, and the world's largest treasury ever, to gamble with.

Trailers can be a VERY unreliable indicator of a movie.

Good point. We'll just have to watch the whole movie, then.

 

[Cyrus]

Can you explain that comparison? How are we becoming the Romans?

By trying to flex our muscle and power the rest of the world into doing what we tell them to. We are building an empire, when that's exactly what our founding father were trying to avoid. Huge standing armies. Large military industries, giving up liberties for security. Etc, Etc, Etc.

 

[Cyrus]

I did especially like the comment in the trailer on 725 bases in 130 countries followed by Rummy saying something like 'numbers can be distracting'. We've had the discussion before about what those numbers really mean (subtract embassies and 10-man liaison posts and how many does that leave you?). So it makes me wonder: is the producer of the film making fun of the people who see it?

I heard a review of a Michael Moore film once (can't remember which one) where the writer called it a "mocumentary", where the purpose is to mock and insult the audience into accepting his point, without consideration for the truth. He wasn't really sure if Moore believed his own point or not, but that isn't really relevant: the purpose of the movie is to make him rich. Its like Howard Stern: shock people into watching, but don't really show them anything of value. That's how the trailer strikes me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary The twist of it is, of course, that the numbers are all factually true - but they are a distraction. They are meant to overwhealm a person into suspending critical thought and succombing to shock.

Well, if you know of point's that are being twisted, by all means show me, I would like to know.

As for the bases, do you know off hand how many are insignificantly small as you say, and how many are significant?

My point is, the movie is an eye opener. I mean, these are people like Richard Perle and John McCain. Not anyone off the street.

 

[selfAdjoint]

heard a review of a Michael Moore film once (can't remember which one) where the writer called it a "mocumentary", where the purpose is to mock and insult the audience into accepting his point, without consideration for the truth. He wasn't really sure if Moore believed his own point or not, but that isn't really relevant: the purpose of the movie is to make him rich. Its like Howard Stern: shock people into watching, but don't really show them anything of value. That's how the trailer strikes me.

It's always easy to dismiss anything you don't by attributing it to contemptible speculative motives you assign. And the web is surely full of posters who follow that practice; people of all persuasions. But gee, Russ, PF is supposed to be a cut above that. Critical analysis of content, not cheap debating points is what we look for.

 

[kyleb]

So what is the confirmed tally of our military bases in foreign countries?

 

[Mickey]

Well, what do you mean by insight? The man was a five star general before he was president. The movie even quotes him as saying "god help us when we have a president who does not understand the military as well as I do."

I just meant insight into present day events. I don't think he had a telescope for the future, let me put it that way.

Also, his religous fervor meant his priorities are inconsistent with those of today's. He did not understand, apparently, that religion could also create highly militaristic organizations. Instead, he thought it was atheism that would do it, because the communists were establishing their own industrial military this way, via Marxist philosophy.

As for the religious part, I think that's debatable. There was not this Christian right movement at the time.

Sure there was, and it was even more powerful than it is today. Christianity was what separated us from the communists. The problem with communism back then wasn't so much that they had big government, but that they had a godless government.

I know that sounds hard to believe, but Christian politicians like Eisenhower are the reason we had the words "under God" inserted into the pledge in 1954 and "in God we trust" engrained on the money in 1956. Not coincidentally, Eisenhower's administration was from 1953 to 1961.

Eisenhower's name is all over those Christo-fascist laws.

Eisenhower's speech is an attempt to appeal to good Christian people to take a stand against our military industrial complex, but dispite his efforts many Christians work to do exactly the opposite.

Sort of. His speech was an attempt to appeal to good Christian people to take a stand against the imitation of the Russian military industrial complex by not imitating the atheism supporting it. He didn't think that you could have such a thing as moral atheism.

What grounds do you have to suggest Eisenhower would share your detest for our increasing non-religious population?

Eek! I certainly do not detest a rising non-religious population.

kyleb, I think I see how you could have completely misunderstood me there. The fact that a hero like Eisenhower could have such brazen authoritarian contempt for non-religious people is pretty disappointing and for that reason it is preferable not to think of it.Anyway, although I really don't like Eisenhower, I just want to reiterate what's important and say that big militaries suck... even though they subsidize the creation of technological wonders, like the computer and the internet.

What's so "terrifying" about the terrorists is the fact that even they have figured this out and have now overpowered us in a way. Instead of having big military machines, they have small nimble religious groups to act as weapons themselves. We can't fight them with big militaries. When you have so many people killing themselves and surrounding their missles with civilians, I'm not sure that you can fight them at all, which is why world public opinion seems so divided over Israel.

Can we have a more depressing thread?

 

[Tojen]

Eisenhower's mistake was in thinking that Christrianity was an absolute authority, that it was unassailable by politics. In reality, it's a set of arbitrary values that can be used to sway the masses either way, as we're seeing today.

 

[kyleb]

His speech was an attempt to appeal to good Christian people to take a stand against the imitation of the Russian military industrial complex by not imitating the atheism supporting it.

Eisenhower's statement is not in context of Russia. Again, it is an appeal for us to take a stand against the dangers of our own military industrial complex:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm

Eek! I certainly do not detest a rising non-religious population.

kyleb, I think I see how you could have completely misunderstood me here. The fact that a hero like Eisenhower could have such brazen authoritarian contempt for non-religious people is pretty frightening and for that reason it is preferable to just to ignore it or assume otherwise.

I apologize, I simply confused myself as I didn't see any other reason you might project such bigotry on Eisenhower. But my question remains; what grounds do you have to suggest Eisenhower would harbor such detest for our increasing non-religious population?

 

[Mickey]

Eisenhower's statement is not in context of Russia. Again, it is an appeal for us to take a stand against the dangers of our own military industrial complex:

Russia is the historical and cultural context of his statements. He’s speaking as the president of the US during the Red Scare. He doesn’t mention Russia by name, but I’m trying to take the speech in the time and place it was given.

He’s talking about the increasing role of government in America’s economy, which is causing the economy to become more militaristic, because one of the priorities of government is to provide a military. He believes that this is curtailing the freedom of spiritual people, who in time of peace would choose not to work on militaristic goods and services.

Russia was the largest command economy in the world at the time. It was the paradigm of a government that had ultimately increased its role in the economy. Russia was highly militaristic. The country also infringed upon the freedom of its people. Last, but not least, it had no spirituality or religion. Perhaps, if it had religion to guide it, then it would not be overwhelmed by its military industry.

Ike wanted the American people to hold on to their religion so that the country wouldn't be administered by godless politicians, like in Russia. He thought we would lose our moral principles otherwise, but he didn't realize that atheists could also be moral. He wished that, as America’s military grew stronger to fight the Russians, America would not lose God’s favor in the process.The best evidence that Ike was a poor prophet for our time, though, is this passage:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Well, our mighty military establishment does not appear to dissuade Arab terrorists from risking their own destruction. In fact, our aggressors appear quite eager to ensure their own destruction, alongside our own.

It’s only later that he says,

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.

Ike wasn’t worried about having a large and powerful military. He believed that military strength was essential.

It’s the intersection of the military with the free market that worried him. He believed it would drain ourselves of our spirituality. That's why he would see the rising numbers of non-religious people as the ultimate sign of tragedy.

I apologize, I simply confused myself as I didn't see any other reason you might project such bigotry on Eisenhower. But my question remains; what grounds do you have to suggest Eisenhower would harbor such detest for our increasing non-religious population?

I think his establishment of theism both on government property and in the minds of every child who has attended school during the past half-century is unqualified evidence of his bigotry against the non-religious.

If that’s not enough, though, hear it in his own words:

We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words "under God" added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man.

From http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/scar_d.htm .

His farewell speech is also available as a streaming video from the Disclosure Project.
http://cseti.homesite.net/ike.rm

 

[kyleb]

Yes Russia is what drove the need for a strong military which Eisenhower is speaking of; but "our military establishment" is the directly stated subject of his statements. The merger between military and industry, in both the historical and cultural context and as he plainly states, is exactly what we were getting ourselves into at the time.

As for his comments and action in regards to religion, I suppose I let that slide as part of being a man of his time and don't suspect he would make the same decisions today, much like I wouldn't expect Jefferson to have any desire to own slaves today. However, I also do respect your opinion to the contrary.

 

[Mickey]

Really? He died less than 30 years ago. People are still alive today who knew him personally and share these same values.

We outlawed slavery more than a hundred years ago, but God is still in the pledge and on our money.

What makes you think that, with his laws still in place, Eisenhower would act differently today towards the non-religious?

 

[Cyrus]

Mickey, yes, he did put religion in there, but no, that was not the point of his "military industrial complex." I will venture to say that it is generally agreed upon by all, less you naturally, that this had little or nothing to do with spreading Christianity, and everything to do with military industry.

If you watch the movie, why we fight, his children are interviewed. They make no mention of him being concerned about religion, only about a growing military industry.

 

[Mickey]

Not specifically Christianity, but definitely spirituality and theism.

It's not a huge deal, because it's thankfully becoming more popular to see that one can be moral without religion. But that is still not a very popular viewpoint, no thanks to Eisenhower.

Remember, he said he recognized the imperative need to develop a military industrial complex. What was he worried about? The spiritual implications.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, our mighty military establishment does not appear to dissuade Arab terrorists from risking their own destruction. In fact, our aggressors appear quite eager to ensure their own destruction, alongside our own.

You're last post tried to put what he said into context, and yet you went outside the context of what he was talking about with the above statement. He was referring to nuclear war, not ME terrorism.

 

[Cyrus]

Not Christianity specifically, but definitely spirituality and theism.

Maybe on the sides, sure, but overall, no. That was not what he was trying to get across.

It’s the intersection of the military with the free market that worried him. He believed it would drain ourselves of our spirituality. That's why he would see the rising numbers of non-religious people as the ultimate sign of tragedy.

No, I do not agree with this statement, not one word of it. You make it seem he was worried only about religion, and that's not true.

 

[kyleb]

Really? He died less than 30 years ago. People are still alive today who knew him personally and share these same values.

We outlawed slavery more than a hundred years ago, but God is still in the pledge and on our money.

What makes you think that, with his laws still in place, Eisenhower would act differently today towards the non-religious?

I think that today many non-religious people show dignity beyond others who claim as much though superficial adherence to spiritual and moral principles of various faiths, and I give Eisenhower the benift of the doubt in beliving that he would see the same.

 

[russ_watters]

We are building an empire...

When was the last time our empire grew, under the definition of the term that fits what the Romans did?

 

[russ_watters]

It's always easy to dismiss anything you don't by attributing it to contemptible speculative motives you assign. And the web is surely full of posters who follow that practice; people of all persuasions. But gee, Russ, PF is supposed to be a cut above that. Critical analysis of content, not cheap debating points is what we look for.

Et tu, sA. Sure, I sling the rhetoric like everyone else in here, but I also made an argument in my post. You didn't respond to it. [actually, two, if you counting cyrus's that I'm arguing against]

My opinions, at least, always come with an argument.

 

[russ_watters]

As for the bases, do you know off hand how many are insignificantly small as you say, and how many are significant?

So what is the confirmed tally of our military bases in foreign countries?

I'm sure the number provided is accurate, but the point is that it is intentionally misleading. It would be interesting to know, though, how many bases we have with, say, 1000 personnel in them. Apparently, the producer of the movie thought it better to just throw out the bigger number and not look for the relevant one. I'm not going to do his job for him, but I can say that somewhere on the neighborhood of 200 of them are embassies, most (all?) of which have a Marine Corps detatchment for security. Here's a list: http://usembassy.state.gov/

I just thought it was ironic that the producer of the movie followed an intentionally misleading statistic with a quote about how statistics can lie.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm sure the number provided is accurate, but the point is that it is intentionally misleading. It would be interesting to know, though, how many bases we have with, say, 1000 personnel in them. Apparently, the producer of the movie thought it better to just throw out the bigger number and not look for the relevant one. I'm not going to do his job for him.

I just thought it was ironic that the producer of the movie followed an intentionally misleading statistic with a quote about how statistics can lie.

This is a debating trick. You concede the number quoted is accurate and then introduce an additional question of your own choice and insist the statement is defective because it didn't answer your "interesting" question. The number of bases is as stated, so the statement is accurate, and you have no valid grounds to criticize it.

 

[Bystander]

Not really --- liassons with JSDF units, NATO, and elsewhere, military attaches at embassies and consulates --- there's a lot of "spin" built into the "numbers game" --- an expectation that inferrences of "military activities" will be substituted for "bases" which is a substitute for "stations."

 

[russ_watters]

Some better, (though still not great) stats can be derived from this wik article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

Using the number of active troops (1,415,289), subtracting the number of them stationed in the US (1,112,684), and the top 5 plus the middle east...

Germany 69,395
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

... and dividing by the remainder (wik's number, 702 - perhaps 50 bases in those combined areas) yields an average troop strength of about...

oops - heh, I actually started writing before calculating. That little exercise yields a negative number of remaining troops. It seems once you subtract those top 5 countries and the Middle East, the rest of our bases are so insignificantly small that they don't even show up inside the error margin of those stats!

Well, let's go with gross numbers - Both the active total and the domestic are 2006 numbers. The 150,000 for the ME was an estimate, so let's just ignore it. So altogether, we have 302,605 troops in about 702 bases (Wik's number). That's an average of 431 troops in each. Since we know only a small handful of countries have the vast majority of the bases, we can conclude that the vast majority of those 702 bases likely have under 100 personnel.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a debating trick. You concede the number quoted is accurate and then introduce an additional question of your own choice and insist the statement is defective because it didn't answer your "interesting" question. The number of bases is as stated, so the statement is accurate, and you have no valid grounds to criticize it.

? And 'the sky is blue' is a fact too, but that doesn't mean the fact that the sky is blue supports the contention that the US is an empire and has a military industrial complex problem. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it can't also be an intentional deception. As you said - its a debating trick.

And my "interesting question" was a paraphrase of cyrus's - he wanted to know how many were "significant" and how many were "insignificant". I think that's a reasonable (and interesting) question. If you don't like the 1000 troops criteria for being "significant", pick another one, but if you want to argue against the question, I'm not the one who posed it.

 

[Cyrus]

When was the last time our empire grew, under the definition of the term that fits what the Romans did?

Well, if it was a bad analogy, then it was a bad analogy. Who cares, this thread is not about the comparisons of us to the roman empire anyways. So that's the end of that.