Talk:Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers

Why is this so *&^#$ing bare?

Someone please help with this article. I can't believe I'm one of the only ones who has seen this historic documentary and thinks it's important/historic enough to have lengthy info here at Wikipedia while Goddamn Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen has an entry that dwarfs this. My God, is America heading for a downfall or what? Don't any of you idiots CARE? Anyway... I'll be honest... I'm so incredibly furious after watching this doc, I'm not sure I'm capable of being unbiased. It's taking everything in my power to not to completely freak out. Someone who hates America, please come in here and reedit it to make this Documentary look like it's a lie or something. Any interest whatsoever, actually, would be great and make Wikipedia seem more encyclopedia-like or something. This is pitiful. 67.190.61.6 10:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

you know, in all honesty, I would feel more compasion about this if they werent selling the vid for 16.99... what is the difference between war profiteering and making money off of war profiteering? at least guys like Blackwater, etc can say they are out "fighting the good fight" as it were... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nollendorf (talk • contribs) 22:59, October 18, 2006

Well, there are many that would say truly "fighting the good fight" at this point in American history is getting the truth out about corruption that endangers our nation. God, if you only knew how ironic and disturbing it is for you to compare Blackwater's war profiteering to Brave New Films attempt to disseminate the truth. Oh, and $16.99? What do you suggest they do? Make films out of thin air? It costs money to make these films and many of us will gladly pay that and more to keep them coming. If you still don't believe they are sincere, think of it this way. The production quality of these documentaries are pretty good... if they focused that skill and time for corporate and/or news videos and/or entertainment, etc. they would make FAR more money than they do with these projects which are on the fringe (compared to the other prolific media). I find it bizarre that you compare them to Blackwater... there is no rational comparison. 67.190.61.6 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers

http://house-of-bob.blogspot.com/2006/10/iron-triangle.html

I’m curious to see the film, but I’m also required to avail myself of any well researched criticism that’s available on it.

I’m of the opinion that political documentaries, particularly those of the far left, tend to be more sensationalistic and very biased, slanted towards an audience that already “gets it”, and is looking for further emotional affirmation of their views. With such works, the presentation of facts is willfully selective to particular a point of view. Evidence which supports a preconclusion is emphasized; countervailing evidence is conveniently left unaddressed or dismissed.

I have no doubt that there is corruption and mismanagement by the corporations contracted to supply services/materials in Iraq, and I think that should be a concern of any taxpaying citizen. I have no objection to a call to action that reveals waste corruption or fraud. Several questions emerge when putting the question of corruption in historical context:

n Knowing that in all wars (and in civilian endeavors for that matter) there have been elements of corruption and greed, is the supposed profiteering in Iraq on a greater, lesser, or comparable scale?

n Does the fact that corporations are financially benefiting from the war compromise the original justifications for the war?

I wonder if “Iraq for Sale” addresses the first question to any degree, and it’s an answer in the affirmative to the second question that I suspect is an underlying political message of the movie.

It’s not a new theory, and its origins can be found in Marxism: foreign policy is run by the military/industrial complex. Politicians, defense contractors, and the Pentagon work in collusion for the maintenance of power and financial gain while selling the public on imperial wars that aren’t in their interest. Franklin D. Roosevelt somehow allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor; Lyndon Johnson conspired to get us into in Vietnam; and now Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons manipulated intelligence to get us into this war in Iraq for their buddies in Halliburton and the oil industry.

Never mind that this theory doesn’t explain our involvement in Afghanistan.

Ted Kennedy gave the conspiracy expression when he publicly stated that he believed “President Bush and his cronies cooked up this war about WMD’s on his ranch in Texas, probably just to mislead us.”

A selective fact: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

Anyways, not having seen the movie, I’ll reserve judgment to an educated guess on its message.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lips Mahoney (talk • contribs) 12:16, October 19, 2006

> I’m of the opinion that political documentaries, particularly those of the far left, tend to be more sensationalistic and very biased

Ok, that's hilarious... have you ever seen all the political documentaries from the right on the Clintons? Where they are portrayed as murderers, etc. and that's just their nice side? You don't have to mention that you haven't seen the film, I can easily see by the questions you've posed above that you've not only not seen this film, but you haven't researched the activities of these companies yourself to much degree..

> Anyways, not having seen the movie, I’ll reserve judgment to an educated guess on its message.

Look, I'll agree that all these documentaries left-leaning or right should be taken with a grain of salt until you do your own research into the matter. AND, I'll agree that many Democrats are very flawed and need to be removed from office as well. (see this documentary, it attacks both the left and the right: HERE ... And... as far as your own research goes... the answer to your first main question is a resounding YES. Look it up yourself... and YES, the documentary mentions that almost from the get go. No war has ever been this privatized in the History of the planet and the waste and endangerment to America is out of this world. It's based on govt. docs, hearings, eyewitness accounts of people who actually worked at these companies. Is it left-leaning? YES. If this was Democrats doing the same thing, would they be attacking them? Hell YES. If you haven't noticed, Lieberman has been getting his ass tore up by Democrats. True patriots aren't solemnly tied to party lines, they are tied to their family... their children... their country. 67.190.61.6 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi, I can't find any negative reviews as of this date. Please help me sift through THESE REVIEWS and hopefully we can add someone of substance who is critical of the film to the entry. 67.190.61.6 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been a pain in the butt to find any negative reviews, but through some creative Googling methods I found a couple (sort of) and I'm adding them now 67.190.61.6 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

"Hi, I can't find any negative reviews as of this date. Please help me sift through THESE REVIEWS and hopefully we can add someone of substance who is critical of the film to the entry."

I'll see what I can do...

“n Knowing that in all wars (and in civilian endeavors for that matter) there have been elements of corruption and greed, is the supposed profiteering in Iraq on a greater, lesser, or comparable scale?”

So, the question here ISN'T whether there is documented evidence of corruption or greed currently in the Iraq venture, but whether comparatively it is any more or less than what we've experienced in past wars. I'm curious to see if the movie addresses this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lips Mahoney (talk • contribs) 14:51, October 20, 2006

YES, the documentary mentions that almost from the get go. No war has ever been this privatized in the History of the planet and the waste and endangerment to America is out of this world. It's based on govt. docs, hearings, eyewitness accounts of people who actually worked at these companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.61.6 (talk • contribs) 00:07, October 25, 2006

Really? The American Revolution springs instantly to mind. This is a POV plugging of a movie. Nickjost 16:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the article on war profiteering does not mention the American Revolution. Perhaps you should be discussing it there.

Even if what you are saying is correct, are you denying that significant war profiteering has occurred in the Iraq war?

"This is a POV plugging of a movie." - No, this is a talk page, and the user is expressing an opinion. If you want to dispute facts, that is what this page is for. --George100 10:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm nominating this for deletion based on NPOV position taken both in the article and in this talk page. I will note that the primary citation (the ABC article) is far harsher on the film than is evident in the article. It closes with calling this movie, by implication, a political piece. If so it merits no more attention than the thousands of political essays generated on both sides in the US every year. The film has failed to rouse any significant interest as is clear from the comments of frustration here in the talk page. I'm going to come back in a week and delete the page unless there are some serious citations from external mass media or serious academic sources and not blogs or small time review cites. Citings of those sources should be accurate and not skewed as per the ABC source. Nickjost 16:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see the NPOV dispute on the main page. Just because what the movie deals with is not NPOV does not mean a page about the movie is not as well. As for the "failing to rouse any significant interest" I disagree as well. Robert Greenwald is enough of a notable director for his work to have a page. He's promoted the movie on things like Real Time with Bill Maher on Nov. 3. I'm removing the NPOV dispute unless you can cite specific parts of the article which do not fit the criteria. ShigityShank 07:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been back in a while, but I have a comment above that is not answered. How is this substantially different from the Revolution? Its not. Therefore the claim in the article that, "been privatized by corporations to an extent unprecedented in history" is POV trying really hard to hide as NPOV. Nor do you address my point that this is equivalent to a newspaper editorial, very few of which would get encyclopedic entries. While IMDB lists it, there are, conspicuously, no sales receipts. There also appears to be no commentary outside of movie reviews. I can find no substantive conversations about the film or provoked by the film. One of the promoters on this list *also* failed to find any. The SFGate review's closing remarks are probably the most telling, "There's no objectivity in this film -- Greenwald's goal is not to offer balanced coverage but to roil the waters. It should also be said that most of the charges aired here have been reported before. But Greenwald is skillful enough to spark a fresh sense of outrage." That is the film can't provoke controversy because its an opinion piece covering well tread territory, just like an editorial. The only reason I ended up here is that my cousin needed to write a review of the thing and neither he nor I could find anything substantive about it. Can you present information where this film has sparked substantive debate? Grossed more than a $1 mill? Something that would show its not a vanity piece?Nickjost 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you wish to delete an article because you disagree with one sentence. If you seriously think that the Iraq war is not different from the Revolution in terms of profiteering, then you are free to note that if you can substantiate your claim.

This documentary is clearly notable. As stated above, the fact that the film itself has a point of view has nothing to do with the neutrality of an article describing it. --George100 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV!

this article is terribly out of format. It needs to respect Wikipedia guidelines and be much more NPOV. This reads like a review, and uses many words that violate a neutral tone. I agree it is important to have a good Wikipedia article on this, but this is not a wikipedia article it is review that sings its praises. Would the original editors please change this, before i do. Any help or comments would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.128.154 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)