Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

John Cusack: Outsourced Warfare Represents a "Radical, Dangerous, Disgusting Ideology"

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2008.


An interview with Cusack about his latest film, War Inc., which takes the outsourcing of military operations to the absurd.
More stories by Joshua Holland

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Note: A trailer for War, Inc. can be viewed in the video window to your right.

John Cusack's new film, War, Inc., is set in a fictionalized Iraq. It's a funny film. It might have been tough to watch if it weren't, given the level of destruction that five years of occupation have wrought on the real country.

Cusack, along with co-writers Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser, offer up a dystopian vision of the future of privatized warfare set in "Turaqistan," a presumably oil-rich country that, if it really existed, would surely be somewhere that most Americans couldn't find on a map.

The film's humor rests on very real and demonstrably disastrous trends in neoconservative foreign policy of recent years -- a lethal war of choice and profit, the dismantling of states and plundering of their resources, a profound cultural insensitivity, lack of accountability and reckless disregard for easily-predicted consequences -- which are then pushed to the absurd.

In Iraq, journalists are embedded with troops and tour Potemkin villages to demonstrate progress; in Turaqistan, they're given virtual-reality tours of combat without leaving the cozy confines of "Emerald City," War, Inc.'s version of Baghdad's Green Zone. In Iraq, contractors like Halliburton have squeezed billions out of the treasury for substandard work that has left the country's infrastructure decimated; Turaqistan is wholly-managed by the Halliburton-esque Tamerlane corporation, and the tanks that patrol the country's burned-out streets are covered with NASCAR-style logos for everything from Popeye's Chicken to Golden Palace online gambling.

Fans of the underground classic Grosse Pointe Blank will find much that is familiar. Cusack plays a conflicted killer -- this time a lethal assassin -- an extreme kind of corporate fixer -- whom Tamarlane dispatches to far-flung locales whenever someone of influence threatens the company's bottom line. The film has the same kind of sardonic and referential humor, and employs the same over-the-top ultra-violence pushed to comic extremes. Joan Cusack, in a role reminiscent of the one she played in Grosse Pointe Blank, again steals the show with her few minutes of screen time.

With sharp writing and strong performances by Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff and Ben Kingsley, War, Inc. is provocative and satisfying. But it may have failed in one notable regard. Turaqistan, for all its insanity, is not all that much crazier than the reality of post-invasion Iraq; a week after the film arrived at AlterNet's office, and with mortars raining down in Baghdad's heavily-fortified Green Zone, a Los Angeles-based company announced that it's planning to build a Disney-like skateboard- and theme-park in Baghdad. Never mind that most Iraqi kids have never seen a skateboard -- a spokesperson for the company promised that a shipment of free boards would arrive in Iraq before the park's opening.

AlterNet caught up with John Cusack recently to discuss the inspirations for his film.

Joshua Holland: Tell me a little bit about your new project.

John Cusack: Well, we thought of it as an incendiary political cartoon that would hopefully put America's current imperial adventures in Iraq into a kind of a larger context. And maybe put a different lens on what privatization means; what this plan has been and what it's been like when people try to privatize the very core things it means to be a state. And what it means to spread an ideology like that across the globe.

There are 180,000 contractors in Iraq and about 160,000 troops, right? And if one just takes that trend to its logical conclusion, well that's where "War, Inc." is set. It takes place at a time in the near future when warfare us an entirely corporate affair.

Holland: As a political nerd, it struck me as a highly referential film. I felt like your character, to some extent, was loosely patterned maybe on John Perkins, who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Cusack: You know, that book came out when we were already making the film, I believe. And I know we were writing it when Naomi Klein's groundbreaking piece called "Baghdad Year Zero" came out in Harper's. She's a journalist I've always greatly admired and respected. And then as we were making the movie, she was writing the Shock Doctrine. I remember being aware of it while we were writing it. And I remember talking about it. But you know, this character was also based on [former U.S. Envoy to Iraq] Paul Bremer flying in while Baghdad was still burning and literally ruling by Fiat. Sitting down in Saddam's old palace and banging out 50 or 60 new laws that would allow 100 percent foreign ownership of previously state-owned industry by these outside corporations. And he was running around in those Brooks Brothers suits and the military boots when he did it.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war inc, war profiteering, iraq

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Odd change of subject there.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 19, 2008 1:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cusack: It sure ... it doesn't feel like it. You know, there are individuals in the party who have done important work. But I think when Pelosi took impeachment off the table it was a disastrous development for the Democratic party. I can see how they thought they were going to just ride out the election and take power. But if they're going to let the administration commit war crimes like this ... breaking U.S. and international law on this level without any accountability, I don't know what kind of authority the Democratic Party has left.

Holland: Let me switch gears a little bit and talk about Hollywood's relationship with the project of war. You're no doubt going to come into a lot of fire from our lunatic friends on the right. And they've done a pretty good job of portraying Hollywood as kind of a bastion of anti-Americanism.


That's where the interview becomes forgettable, so I'll run the questions from there:

Me: Impeachment? War crimes? International law? Now, right there, most of the people in the country will be lost. What exactly would you fire the president for?

J.C.: Ahh.... well, there are a number...

Me: Allow me to fill in the blanks. One, there was the stolen 2000 election, stolen with the help of the Supreme Court's 5-4 halt of the recount, in total contravention of the right wing's manic obsession with state's rights (can we impeach Scalia, too?). Two, there was the Cheney Energy Task Force with its Iraqi oilfield maps, followed by deliberate lies about Saddam's nukes and bioweapons, followed by a domestic propaganda campaign to sell the war, followed by an invasion of Iraq, a crime of aggression under the rules defined in the post-WWII era. Then you've got point number Three, your straight up bribery issues involved in giving billions in no-bid "reconstruction contracts" to Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle, and let's not forget the great menace of ASIAN BIRD FLU, and the multibillion dollar contract for Tamiflu, patent held by Gilead, where Rumsfeld was CEO before being tapped by Bushie, and where was I? Yes, number Four - a torture program out of the Marquis de Sade's personal journal, and then there is Five, illegal domestic spying as well as the use of a massive agent provocateur-COINTELPRO program to attack antiwar groups, and let's not forget that idiocy and incompetence are also impeachable offenses in a President of the United States, and so there you have six.

J.C.: Ah, that seems...

Me: Of course, the war crimes and the illegal invasion of Iraq fall under international jurisdiction, according to the treaties we have signed with other nations, meaning that Rumsfeld and his litte cronies will never be able to leave the country again without fear of being thrown in jail, which is certainly their due. These guys are not only arrogant, but also stupid, and greedy to boot. Antonia Juhasz lays it all out in the Bush Agenda, in similar detail to Naomi Klein did in Shock Doctrine, sort of a middle-of-the-road between John Perkins and Naomi Klein, at least as good as either.

J.C.: Yes, well, that's great, and what I...

Me: But what are you guys saying about this being some recent phenomenon? This has been more or less status quo since about 1950, and I mean, Allen Dulles (you know who he was, right) was trying to expand U.S. access to Mesopotamian oil in 1914, right as WWI broke out - in Mesopotamia (Iraq), which is where World War I actually started. Say, do you like that guy Rob Newman? He did a great piece, "The History of Oil" -truly must see- because here we are again, right?

J.C.: Yes, well..
(cont.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Odd change of subject there. Posted by: cocacolocao
(cont.)
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 19, 2008 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Me: Yes it does, John, yes it does. But let me tell you what the liberal elites are upset about, really - the tarnishing of Brand America. They are so pissed off. They are howling, "we spent decades building up Brand America! We were able to walk in the front door of any country and take whatever we wanted, because we looked good doing it!. We said it was aid, and assistance and help, and we made out like bandits on the quiet for decades! And now you greedy asses have made everyone all suspicious and distrustful! You've soured our pitch, you bastards!" - Ooh, aren't they testy?

J.C. Now, I don't know...

Me: True, it's not like the right are any better. These guys want full-blown militarism, and they think they are back in the Napoleonic era or something. Too much time conniving with the Saudis and the Israelis, not like they have a monopoly or anything. Say, how would you compare your movie to Lord of War? That was pretty good, I think. The ending was good. Suppliers - like whoever was supplying Fatah-al-Islam in Lebanon recently?

J.C.: Look, what...

Me: Do you like literature, John? Some of my favorites are Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad. Heart of Darkness, John, that's where we are now. Scene as follows:

"Instead of going up, I turned and descended to the left. My idea was to let that chain-gang get out of sight before I climbed the hill. You know I am not particularly tender; I've had to strike and to fend off. I've had to resist and to attack sometimes -- that's only one way of resisting -- without counting the exact cost, according to the demands of such sort of life as I had blundered into. I've seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire; but, by all the stars! these were strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men -- men, I tell you. But as I stood on this hillside, I foresaw that in the blinding sunshine of that land I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly. How insidious he could be, too, I was only to find out several months later and a thousand miles farther. For a moment I stood appalled, as though by a warning. Finally I descended the hill, obliquely, towards the trees I had seen.

J.C. Whatever. Look...

Me: But you see, this is the exact analogy of our present situation. We are all slave traders and dealers in the products of slave labor, regardless of how pleasant we may be in our daily dealings. You know the scene in Lord of War, the "life of a bullet" montage - well, what about the lives of our shoes, our clothing, the gasoline that goes in the tank, the food that goes in our mouths - it all travels such great distances. Furthermore, the two greatest enemies of freedom in this system go under the strange names of capital liberalization and intellectual property rights... odd, isn't it?

J.C.: Yes, this is very odd.

Me: So the devils that Conrad refer to - those are the neocons and the neoliberals. Which kind of devil is which, I can't be sure. . . Well, that's all we got time for. One word of advice: don't get all buddy buddy with the left, or with the right - focus on issues. Yup, I'll be wanting my dime now... what? Oh, come on, you know where we live, don't you? You know... who is the #1 prison state on the planet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, there's a wake-up call!! Posted by: pete ess
» What's your point here? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE you're boring me to death Posted by: cwilsondrum
» That's one way of doing an interview Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: TC's take Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: (cont.) Posted by: greenPuker
» RE: (cont.) Posted by: Shey
better.....
Posted by: Smiggsy on May 19, 2008 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Better to laugh than cry i guess

.....you do have a day job don't you tc?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: better..... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: better..... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: better..... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: better..... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: better..... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: better..... Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: better..... Posted by: houseblend
Nothing new about War Inc
Posted by: Bobsays on May 19, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The private sector has always been involved in war. Every major war has also had a huge private sector element. Klein and Cussack's "brilliant insights" involve telling us that this private sector involvement now comes coloured with the hues of today's modern government outsourcing movement, and the age of the high-tech start-up. So what?

It never suprised me that the US would go to war relfecting where it is at now. All societies do. As Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the military you have, not the one you dream about. The same can be said about government or society.

You could easily make a satire about modern Islam: Muhammed 2.0. But in the end, once the jokes are done, are we any wiser and will the power game be over? Don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nothing new about War Inc Posted by: particle
» He didn't *say* it was *new* Posted by: Smackback
Between now and November,
Posted by: Last Chance on May 19, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if the Cheney/Bush war machine bombs Iran, there will be no way to stop it from involving Russia and escalating into World War Three, which Bush and his Rev. Hagee regard as their longed-for Biblical Armageddon forcing the very late return of a vengeful Jesus, etc. ad nauseum. This comedy is so dark it's not funny!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Between now and November, Posted by: richholland
» RE: Between now and November, Posted by: cocacolocao
Contact your Congressional Rep!
Posted by: ThePublicRecord on May 19, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.pubrecord.org/

Congress's $3.5 million "Bake Sale" for the Boy Scouts

By Chris Rodda
The Public Record
May 19, 2008

Alright, it isn't actually a bake sale, but it might as well be. On May 15, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5872, an act "To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes." The other purposes? The sale of the coins by the Secretary of the Treasury, with a surcharge on each coin sold to "be paid to the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation." In other words, this is a congressionally mandated fundraiser for the Boy Scouts.

With the act allowing for up to 350,000 of this coin to be issued and fixing the surcharge at $10 per coin, the Boy Scouts could receive as much as $3.5 million from their sale. Never before, in the long history of U.S. government issued commemorative coins, has this benefit been granted to an organization that promotes religion or discriminates based on religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Contact your Congressional Rep! Posted by: Doubting Thomas
now just what power could this be describing?
Posted by: Suzon on May 19, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...a lethal war of choice and profit, the dismantling of states and plundering of their resources, a profound cultural insensitivity, lack of accountability and reckless disregard for easily-predicted consequences"?

Sounds like an accurate description of what is inaccurately described as the British Empire and even further back the Norman-English dynasty founded by William the Conquerer in 1066 and still operating in its many Anglophone outposts today.

Dog-eat-dog has a long and dishonorable history. It ain't just what's been happening in our lifetimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What the devil are you talking about? Posted by: photon's feather
Peace will come, it must be Won. One by one.
Posted by: Ottomatic on May 19, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we have Peace in our Hearts and Minds it will become
Reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares what John Cusack thinks.
Posted by: arclight7 on May 19, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love these bubble-headed actors who think the world actually cares about their opinions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strawberry Fields
Posted by: willymack on May 19, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me take you down
"Cause I'm going
(To) Strawberry Fields
Where nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever.
So sang the Beatles so many years ago. Of course, they were singing about "street Reds", or secanobarbital, a powerful, quick-acting barbiturate. Our "free" press acts pretty much the same way, hey what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Strawberry Fields Posted by: photon's feather
Great interview, sounds like a good movie
Posted by: mcubed on May 19, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lampooning, a great American tradition, is none the less inefficatious of its aims.
Posted by: Nightstallion on May 19, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Major General Smedly Butler a two time Medal of Honor winner wrote the definitive book on war profiteering. Unlike Cusack's clown act, it is amusing only to ghouls demons and devils.

The title of the book is: WAR IS A RACKET! READ IT! That is just my take of course. No one will read it. Just as no one has pressed to rescind the damned Patriot Act or The War Powers act which has managed to gut the constitution like a fish.

For writing this little missive I am a noncombatant terrorist. Moreover, so are you for reading it or posting any dissention here on AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You
Posted by: Ivann on May 19, 2008 11:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always admired John Cusack & if he were to run for President tomorrow I would vote for him. Why cannot US politicians stand for what is RIGHT & stop pandering to the corporatists, the military/industrial/complex & the basest of fears of so many US citizens. Of course the answer is greed & love of power. I know this is simplistic but that's the way I am & I make no apology for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Usually, thoughtcriminal, your posts are insightful and informative.
Posted by: Squarehead on May 20, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Usually, thoughtcriminal, your posts are insightful and informative. These above are also still informative. but insightful? Maybe too focused on YOUR ideas, insufficiently on persuading the reader.

At the end of the piece:
"As Arundhati Roy says, we need to lay siege to empire with everything we've got. You know? Deprive it of oxygen, shame it, mock it, tell our own stories. This corporatist revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they're selling ... their ideas, their wars, their notion of inevitability."

That works for me. Don't care about ideological correctness, just want to WIN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

madfrit
Posted by: cocacolocao on May 20, 2008 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I note the reference to mercenaries who seem to be involved in every major conflict, and how, if they are hired by a corporation there is no accountability as the corporation cannot be gaoled or punished for its immoral and heinous crimes against the citizens of a sovereign country. When Blackwater commits atrocities, no one reports it, cos there is deliberately noone out on these ops.
Now the motivation for these mercenaries is ca$h, greed and a desire to wage war on another people, bloodlust if you will. The people who ended up in Guantanamo Bay, were deemed to be mercenaries on the one hand, and enemy non-combatants on the other, one hand washes the other. Their motivation seemed to be 'brotherhood through religion', and a belief, however skewed, that their participation in this war against a Foreign invader. 'Hold on a minute'I hear you say, "these traitors did it for a promise of $20,000 by the Bin Ladin Corporation. No, not the one that still operates the oil and roadbuilding in Saudi, the one set up and financed, trained and armed by the U $ of A. Okay, so that makes them mercenaries! Why is it illegal to be a mercenary if you are a towel-head, and fine if you wear aviator sunglasses and work for Blackwater inc? War is something that by its nature inspires all sorts of emotions among the non combatant civilian population. There is a swell oof Pride and Patriotism, a democratic call for Unity and Solidarity even among those who grew up hated, spat on, disenfranchised in this man's democracy.
"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."
Abraham Lincoln
In this increasingly globalized world where battle are not foreseeably land battles between neighbouring countries, not since the ICBM and airborne refuelling and a roving interest in the economic-politics of the globe, rather than geo politics, except where it means conducting Geo-physic surveys over the land they are about to rape. Yes Geo-politics is alive and well, and its not about a land and a country, a belief system, a moral defence of a disadvantaged neighbour or any other noble reason for warfare, It wasn't about getting rid of Sadam, they put him there, He was "our man in Arabia" according to Nixon, and the weren't about to commit the same mistake that topping Diem opened for them in 1963? Another protracted and ceaseless war. Protracted because business is good. The motivations of people back home are filled with the success stories of our boys. The civilians of post war Iraq don't need soldiers thrusting weapons in their faces, their children's faces, not if they are to learn to love their liberators. These people need Doctors and Nurses, Psychologists and psychiatrists, therapy to help them overcome their trauma, while in the U$A, untouched by the horrors of this conflict the Bushes had no right to be in, buoyant on the war stories, united in their grief, support their president in keeping this war going. As someone once said in the not so distant past:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in [Iraq], nor in England, nor in America, nor in [Syria]. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
The subsituted countries were Iraq for Russia and Syria for Germany, the rest of the speech is attributed to Herman Goerring about

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

madfrit
Posted by: cocacolocao on May 20, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wo rld War Two, the War to end all Wars? However what is frightening is just how easily and how quickly the public citizens of the United $tates$ of America rallied to the promise of vengeance.

What we are witnessing here is not an act of vengeance, but an act of deceit, where the reasons were made for war long before 911, and on the advice of a man who was acting in the interests of a corporation rather than serving his country as vice-president. Good old Franklin D Roosevelt had this to say about the halliburtons et al: " “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,”

It is important to note that the U$A is not, as Pilger describes, on the road to fascism, it has already arrived, and this war if it does nothing else, proves that.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." So said one of America's Founding Father's and architects of American Democracy, Thomas Jefferson, and yet what we witness now, is that in these times of the information super highway, knowledge could be shared in vivo, as it is happening, and yet we now have a situation where the media cannot go out without the military. They certainly cannot go out with the contractors and their private armies, and cannot bear witness to the ravages of war, or report on it objectively. Are these not the very things that were going on under communism? Are these not the very things we were fighting during the cold war?. This is nothing more than a sinister censorship and one that ought to be seen and portrayed as such, Thank you John Cusack et al, for the bravery of the message. Journalism is no longer telling it how it is. Abu Ghraib and the leaked photos, that was real journalism all the rest has just been propaganda selling the bosses message. And who are these bosses? It isn't the President, even in the early part of the last century, US Presidents recognised that their power was nothing compared to the power of, what he called an invisible empire.

"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy."

Hail Halliburton and Darth Cheney, Hail Blackwater, legally recognised combatants, and yet enemy non combatants are only now recently released from Guantanamo Bay, where they have been incarcerated for being no more than tourists in Iraq. Yes some may well have been there for military training for the war to save Islam. Unfortunately being Islamic is more than just a nationality, and yet do we denounce the Jews who go to Israel to do their training? Why the hipocrisy? Sure and whats the difference between an enemy non-combatant and a civilian? Where do we draw the line? Who draws the line? And Who is there to report whether a line has been drawn or not?

If a tree falls in a forest and there is noone there to report it, did it fall. If civilians are brutally assassinated by Blackwater security, and there are no journalists there to report it, did it actually happen. If all knowledge is controled by the state in the interests of the american corporations raping a once sovereign state, liberating a place just so they could pilfer and loot all the wealth and future wealth of that country are we not at the end of democracy? And we are trying to sell democracy to these people, by showing how the first world, deliberately discriminates against the developing world, amking them paupers in their own country, derailing the economy so American interests can best be served, impoverishing an already suffering population. We might as well have left Sadam in Power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

madfrit (continued)
Posted by: cocacolocao on May 20, 2008 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it, did it actually happen. If all knowledge is controled by the state in the interests of the american corporations raping a once sovereign state, liberating a place just so they could pilfer and loot all the wealth and future wealth of that country are we not at the end of democracy? And we are trying to sell democracy to these people, by showing how the first world, deliberately discriminates against the developing world, amking them paupers in their own country, derailing the economy so American interests can best be served, impoverishing an already suffering population. We might as well have left Sadam in Power.

The current state of affairs where political 'instability' is in the vested interest of all the foreign corporations there, with the embedded journalists portraying an entirely different picture of the "PEACE" in Iraq, then I am sorry, "the [American] people are [not so] well-informed, [that] they can be trusted with their own government."

Perhaps thats how Dick Cheney et al got their power in the first place.

Am I the only one sensing the Orwellian nature of the 'road to peace in Iraq'. I mean this has got 1984 written all over it, except it isn't the 'party' or the 'state' that we ought be afraid of, it is the corporations, who can never be charged with "WAR CRIMES" and dont tell me there haven't been a tremendous number commited in the absence of a clear and objective press. Look at the Aisch experiemnt and see how far most of the population will go to inflict abuse on others when there is noone there to report it. What happened in Abu Ghraib continues to happen, except 'the firm' really is 'THE FIRM" now. Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The corporate state in genesis.
Posted by: nightgaunt on May 20, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reaching super personhood the next step is nationhood for the various mega-corporations that have GNP greater than many true nations on this planet.
Just imagine fielding their own armies,their consulates and flags,their laws on their territories. The WTO could be their court if they need one.
Marx warned that the way to true socialism(really anarchism} is when the excesses of capitalism destroys itself. Then the workers unite and build a better world. We may not survive to that stage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]