Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

Has anyone seen this documentary yet? It's supposedly out on a limited release right now, since January 20th.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whywefight/trailer/

Looks phenomenal and I don't think it's ever gonna play near me, so it looks like I'll be stuck buying it when it comes to DVD in May.

 

[Tiger]

While I could agree that the U.S has engadged in various military adventures that were started without absolute necessity as the primary motive, I cannot agree with people that think just because some company profits from war, that somehow that makes us get into wars. I have always found that to be a silly point of view.

 

[whytemyke]

While I could agree that the U.S has engadged in various military adventures that were started without absolute necessity as the primary motive, I cannot agree with people that think just because some company profits from war, that somehow that makes us get into wars. I have always found that to be a silly point of view.

Read up on it and you'll see that there is a disgusting amount of people who make money off of war.

Read "War is a Racket" By General Smedley D. Butler (USMC) who fought in WWI. That shit will open your eyes real quick to the real power plays that go on with war.

I actually found a link to where someone typed up the entire book on their website. I own a copy but this is the same shit from what I've perused.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

the list goes on and on. A LOT of people make a LOT of money during wartime, and the only people losing money in the whole ordeal is the government, who is actually in control of the money.

 

[Boogie]

Well duh. Rule of Acquisition #34.

 

[Tiger]

War is an ugly thing, but it's just a cold hard reality that there are gonna be companies in the world that produce war fighting equipment.

 

[Boards of Canada]

Yeah I don't see what the problem is. You go to war, you need equipment. There are companies that provide the equipment. They will make money. Duh?

 

[distantmantra]

Came out today in Seattle, we're planning on going to see it tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Sullen]

I saw this a few months ago (I think it was on the BBC or something awhile back, prior to it being released in theaters here) and it was really a great film.

Initially I was a bit reluctant to watch it, fearing it would be some Michael Moore-esque thing filled with alot of stupid bias and bullshit. It really wasnt though, the film simply asked a question and had alot of different people providing their own answers and viewpoints about the question. It was interesting and engaging, and ultimately I enjoyed it quite a bit. I really feel that most Americans should watch this film, but it will probably just slip under the radar.

edit: I also feel that many people will be suprised by what they see in the film. Alot of American citizens are just plain ignorant when it comes just how profitable wars are, and how much those profits have influenced our descisions to engage in various conflicts around the world.

 

[whytemyke]

I saw this a few months ago (I think it was on the BBC or something awhile back, prior to it being released in theaters here) and it was really a great film.

Initially I was a bit reluctant to watch it, fearing it would be some Michael Moore-esque thing filled with alot of stupid bias and bullshit. It really wasnt though, the film simply asked a question and had alot of different people providing their own answers and viewpoints about the question. It was interesting and engaging, and ultimately I enjoyed it quite a bit. I really feel that most Americans should watch this film, but it will probably just slip under the radar.

edit: I also feel that many people will be suprised by what they see in the film. Alot of American citizens are just plain ignorant when it comes just how profitable wars are, and how much those profits have influenced our descisions to engage in various conflicts around the world.

First off, you're dead on with that last paragraph. If wars didn't result in money being made for lots and lots of select individuals, we'd think twice about whether or not we go to war. As it is, wars are based off of how much money we can amass for corporations as opposed to justice. I've maintained from the beginning that this (Iraq) was clearly a case of capitalist expansion at it's finest. Glad to see I'm not the only person out there who believes this.

Anyways, distantmantra, you gotta report back and let me know how good this film is. I really want to see it. I had to wait forever to see Fog of War, too, and that doc was phenomenal.

 

[Deku]

Wars are always profitable for the victors. The reason why America and its allies are rich is pretty obvious.

 

[malek4980]

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

OMG du Pont started WWI
Step 1. Shoot Franz Ferdiand
Step 2. Profit

Wars are always profitable for the victors. The reason why America and its allies are rich is pretty obvious.

That's why Japan and Germany are the worlds 2nd and third largest economies and the USSR was so poor..................................................................................

Anyway I think you have the causal relationship backwards. Rich countries can afford better technology, their wealth was created by their ability to create and utilize technology in the first place. They than use this technology superiority to win wars. Sometimes cannon fodder trumpts tech (see USSR over the Germans).

I'll also say the Iraq war won't be profitable in general for the US and US companies. The US government will lose hundreds of billions of dollars, and so will companies and the rich through the eventual increase in taxes. Some companies will make out like bandits though.

 

[whytemyke]

Well first off, let's not get ahead of ourselves with Germany and Japan. You're comparing free market societies, under which this relationship is made, and then comparing to a communist command economy. You're practically comparing apples and oranges here.

The argument is that American wars are done out of profit. The entire point here isn't that profit is a byproduct of war, but a reason FOR war. Look at the economic growth throughout the Vietnam war, Deku. It isn't certain industries that you see earning money, but the overall GNP of the United States grew EVERY SINGLE YEAR in a losing war, while unemployment was relatively stable.

War = money, plain and simple, and when we're in a situation where lobbyists control Washington and fund both sides of the aisle to guarantee assistance when it comes time for certain measures, is anyone really going to deny that wars are done for economic profit? Case in point-- Iraq. We're going to end up pulling out like we did in Vietnam, and yet our economy is at the highest it's ever been with private companies earning the rights to harvest the booty of war while the government provides the footwork. International wars are about making people rich. It's the tail wagging the dog here, and because our politicians are allowed to engage in private practice (no real way around it) after their tenure, they're always going to support using government tools as a way of ascertaining funds for the private sector.

Does anyone here really believe that this is how a government is supposed to work? Earning money for their buddies in the private sector by using taxpayer dollars? Face it-- Iraq is porkbarrel spending at it's finest.

 

[malek4980]

Well first off, let's not get ahead of ourselves with Germany and Japan. You're comparing free market societies, under which this relationship is made, and then comparing to a communist command economy.

Well the point by Deku was that winners of war become richer. I showed a counter example.

It isn't certain industries that you see earning money, but the overall GNP of the United States grew EVERY SINGLE YEAR in a losing war, while unemployment was relatively stable.

Outside of the depression I don't think there are many times when the GNP of the US didn't grow. I'm also pretty sure unemployment was lower before Vietnam than it was afterwards.

 

[Boogie]

The argument is that American wars are done out of profit. The entire point here isn't that profit is a byproduct of war, but a reason FOR war. Look at the economic growth throughout the Vietnam war, Deku. It isn't certain industries that you see earning money, but the overall GNP of the United States grew EVERY SINGLE YEAR in a losing war, while unemployment was relatively stable.

Ah, so correlation=causation.

And here I thought that wasn't the case.

War = money, plain and simple, and when we're in a situation where lobbyists control Washington and fund both sides of the aisle to guarantee assistance when it comes time for certain measures, is anyone really going to deny that wars are done for economic profit? Case in point-- Iraq. We're going to end up pulling out like we did in Vietnam, and yet our economy is at the highest it's ever been with private companies earning the rights to harvest the booty of war while the government provides the footwork.

But I thought the Left was crying havoc because the US economy was in the shitter while Bush was off planning an expensive war?

Look, I simply don't buy the premise, and am inclined to side with malek here. I guess I should keep and open mind, and have a look at the film, but I remain skeptical.

 

[brumx]

..

 

[Pimpwerx]

I watched it after the director was on Daily Show. Great movie. War sucks. PEACE.

 

[Ash Housewares]

where the hell is Frank Capra?

 

[Azih]

Well the argument is simple.

Corporations exist solely to create as much profit as possible for their shareholders. Any corporation that is doing what it is supposed to do uses whatever resources and influence it has to ensure that the conditions exist in which profit for shareholders remains high. In the case of corps that create war equipment this happens to be conflict/paranoia.

In any case from interviews I've seen with the director of this flick this is only one of the points that is raised. It seems like he's concerned as much or more by what he sees as an American culture that has become increasingly millitarised. That's a different subject.

 

[Mandark]

Basically, the idea's just a simple application of interest group theory of government.

It's a vast overstatement to say that corporations who stand to benefit from a war are the only, or even primary causes behind that war. But that's no reason to dismiss them as a significant factor. It's basically the same dynamic as all other public policy.

 

[whytemyke]

Look. All I'm saying, and that's clearly shown in that Butler book, is that if war wasn't such a profit for a select group of people, who have the ear of the policy-makers in the United States, then you can guarantee that there wouldn't be nearly as much wars or military actions going on. So much of what we do is dubbed as security when in fact it's about profit. I'm not going so far as to say that police actions such as Somalia or Gulf War I were really spurred on by private corporations. But I think, in my mind, that when you look at these prolonged military conquests with vague goals in mind from the start, it's just hard to assume that anything besides money had to do with it.

I guess I'll go point/counter-point with you guys on this if you want. I mean, God knows I feel strongly enough about my opinion in this regard to do so. But I really don't think it'd be conducive to the overall topic of how good this movie is and when I might get a chance to see it without flying to New York.

So, unless everyone wants a debate on it, I guess we should just agree to disagree on it?

 

[Red Scarlet]

fight fight fight

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Look. All I'm saying, and that's clearly shown in that Butler book, is that if war wasn't such a profit for a select group of people, who have the ear of the policy-makers in the United States, then you can guarantee that there wouldn't be nearly as much wars or military actions going on. So much of what we do is dubbed as security when in fact it's about profit. I'm not going so far as to say that police actions such as Somalia or Gulf War I were really spurred on by private corporations. But I think, in my mind, that when you look at these prolonged military conquests with vague goals in mind from the start, it's just hard to assume that anything besides money had to do with it.

I guess I'll go point/counter-point with you guys on this if you want. I mean, God knows I feel strongly enough about my opinion in this regard to do so. But I really don't think it'd be conducive to the overall topic of how good this movie is and when I might get a chance to see it without flying to New York.

So, unless everyone wants a debate on it, I guess we should just agree to disagree on it?

Yeah but lets be honest, war is much more than profit. It accelerates technology. Cars, GPS systems, computers, airplanes, the Interstate system, all the technologies discovered by space (experiments done in space), canned food, and its probably much more than that too.

War brings a lot of things to the table, not just profit. I hope this film acknowledges all points, not just a tunnelvisioned point of view.

 

[Bluecondor]

where the hell is Frank Capra?

I naively thought that this thread was going to be about Capra's WWII film, or the Band of Brothers episode on the liberation of the concentration camps.

By the way - U.S. companies made a ton of cash off of WWII (the greatest period of industrial production in human history - like the steel industry here in Pittsburgh), but it would be pretty ridiculous to characterize that war as one that was fought to make money for U.S. companies.

The irony is - WWII was a huge factor in helping the U.S. out of the worst economic depression it had ever seen....

 

[MattKeil]

I naively thought that this thread was going to be about Capra's WWII film, or the Band of Brothers episode on the liberation of the concentration camps.

By the way - U.S. companies made a ton of cash off of WWII (the greatest period of industrial production in human history - like the steel industry here in Pittsburgh), but it would be pretty ridiculous to characterize that war as one that was fought to make money for U.S. companies.

The irony is - WWII was a huge factor in helping the U.S. out of the worst economic depression it had ever seen....

Not just the U.S., either. WWII defined the 20th Century. It gave us atomic power, endless communications advances, computers, jet engines, advanced encryption techniques, etc., etc., etc. Technology advanced in ways it never would have otherwise, at least not in as short a timeframe. If you removed WWII from history, when you got back to 2006, you'd be unlikely to recognize the place. Whether that would be a good or a bad thing is up for debate, of course.

I'm very interested to see this movie. More to see if they present a balanced version of the question rather than a kneejerk "OMG people make money during wars!" ejaculation. It's certainly a factor in modern warfare, but I don't think it's the catalyst many make it out to be.

 

[Sullen]

By the way - U.S. companies made a ton of cash off of WWII (the greatest period of industrial production in human history - like the steel industry here in Pittsburgh), but it would be pretty ridiculous to characterize that war as one that was fought to make money for U.S. companies.

There was an interview with the director of Why We Fight (Eugene Jarecki, I think) on the Charlie Rose show, and in that he discussed stuff like that in a bit more detail than the movie does. Basically he said that alot of the conflicts we've fought in so far were fought in for the right reasons. However, the point of the film is to show that we are on a 'slippery slope' Because wars are getting more and more profitable for more and more people because of the push by the goverment to privatize alot of activities that were previously taken care of by the military itself. Basically the film is like a warning, and it really leaves alot of the descision making up to the viewer.