Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

One of my all time favorites.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Admirable film.

Filmmaker Eugene Jarecki tackles a big question. It takes the name from Frank Capra's propaganda series "Why We Fight". It uses Dwight D. Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech as the launching point culminating in the George W. Bush's Iraq War. It looks at the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, the concept of blow back, and Dick Cheney's Halliburton military contracts.The question may be too big. A smaller question of "Why We Fight in Iraq?" is a better option. This is a movie with a lot of talking heads. Some are more compelling than others. Some of them make very broad assertions that are dubious. One guy claims that Japan was ready to surrender but Truman deliberately dropped the bomb to threaten the Russians. There are other claims that are broadly true but lacks the nuance of a real discussion. This is a documentary with a left wing view point and may be fittingly named after a WWII propaganda series. It's also not much in terms of investigative reporting. It's a retread of plenty of anti-war material.

my admiration for Dwight D Eisenhower has increased still more with this film.anyone who labels this propaganda hasn't a clue what propaganda is.I will leave that comment as it is.as far as President Truman dropping the Bomb to scare the Russians, this may well have been on his mind. in politics it is extremely rare, and oftentimes when things happen for just one reason they are trivial. the reality is politics is an extraordinarily difficult balancing act when the downside of any popular decision or vice versa happens very quickly.Truman gave the green light because he wanted the war that japan started 14 years previous to be OVER. if an amphibious invasion had happened costing 1,000,000 + casualties and the fact later came out he could have ended it with a couple B29s, what would the naysayers say then?a lot of Japanese wanted the war over. here's a hint: THEY WEREN'T THE ONES IN CHARGE.but Hiroshima was the wake up call to a ghastly change in weaponry and Nagasaki was the message.the shock allowed those civilians waiting in the wings to seize the moment and surrender in Tokyo bay.the pace at which the united states has become a wolf in sheep's clothing courtesy the likes of bush 1 and bush 2 is frightening.the intrigue and matrix of relationships between corporate America, Washington, press, lobbyists, and those think tanks (where I come from when something 'tanks' its a FAILURE) is appalling but so necessary for the MIC to exist.watch the film at least at let the message sink in then decide for yourself on the validity.do it from a long term historical perspective. I like the part where the interviewee counts off the British, french, and Russian empires all gone in the past century."google it if you don't think so ...."

just when i was trying to conveniently block out the intense shame i have felt towards the American gov't since 9/11 for the sake of my own precarious mental health, i caught this film on HBO. Obviously it has a bias, that bias being a leftist or liberal if you like political bent, however more than liberal or conservative the film seemed biased in that it postulated the inherent value of human life and the message of peace which is at this point anachronistic almost to the point of naiveté. The left and pro-war point of view was represented as well, my personal favorite was the retired NYPD Sargent who tragically lost his son in the heinous catastrophe that helped spark this governments descent into its present state of callous barbarism and blatant disregard for human life both American and foreign. He seemed to me a social conservative, a proud veteran, he himself admitted he was from the "old school" that in his mind the president of the united states should be able to "walk on water" in essence that he had an abiding faith in his government. While i'm sure he and i would have myriad differences politically, socially, and culturally being from very different generations and mindsets, we could agree upon the basic recognition of what is justified and what is not. He started of pro-war for the same reason that many Americans did initially, to get even for 9/11, for simple age-old instinctual revenge for the lost of his beloved son. In the end he has to confront the fact that the president outright lied to him about the justification for this stupid and heinous war. That to me was the true measure of the film's objectivity, not pure objectivity as that is a goal nigh unto unachievable, but a perspective based on the recognition of basic principles common to all mankind like fairness, truthfulness, and the basic value of human life. (though his and many American's main justification, revenge we know can only lead to a vicious cycle of hatred and death, who can say among us that they've never felt the very basic human urge for vengeance for some offense or another) To wrap up this rather lengthy and i must say cathartic comment id also like to address some other previous comments on these boards about pres. Eisenhower's speech being taken out of context. This i find laughable as the complete contents of the speech are laid bare for everyone to hear. The raw data this film presented from iraq itself was what truly stirred my conscience to its present admittedly verbose (perhaps too verbose for this forum) state. The morgue in iraq's record book laid bare, 90% of the initial casualties were civilians, the iraqi hospital docs revelation that almost no soldiers were brought into his ER during the outset of the fighting. "we will prevail" the president guarantees us in his speech coupled with the military expert letting us know that we are in process of setting up 14 permanent bases in iraq nearly made me jump out of my seat, surely the defense contractors and the vice president and former secretary of defense realize the best news for business since WWII, the same realization that they spend billions trying to keep from the American public this is not a war in the sense that it can be won or lost, there can be no real victory for the US when it wages this type of war on a people, every insurgent we kill merely turns more against us. We are not waging a war any longer, we are maintaining a bloody and unjust military occupation of a foreign nation whose internal sectarian hatred we managed to unleashed by ousting the brutal strongman dictator we installed there decades ago to keep it under wraps. Ill wrap this up now is I've made my points and i long ago devolved into a polemic rather a commentary on this film. What is bush's answer for us the constituency of this nation "for too long we have done what feels good....let's roll" can anyone tell me please what brainless monkey behind a typewriter came up with this poorly conceived maxim and what exactly is it supposed to mean for the men and women who are dying for nothing but the profit of unethical, unaccountable corporations men and women American, iraqi, and let's not forget the under equipped foreign national defense contractors who are dying to help our gov't pad out the casualty numbers to try to minimize the number of American deaths.

This is an appropriately titled documentary (ironic also) that delves into what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", in his farewell address. While George Washington's farewell address involved warnings about political polarization of the country, the avoidance of entanglements with foreign nations and the idea that morality in government is required; Eisenhower warned about the ever increasing of power of the complex relationship between the military, the Congress and the military private sector, and the problems associated with having and supporting a standing army. He warned about the ever increasing resource allocation in the face of no visible or clearly defined enemy. A self perpetuation cycle that takes all other expenditures with it. This process seems to have started with WWII and even with Eisenhower's warning, has continued unabated for the past 50+ years, culminating in the current situation we are in (Iraq). During this time the expenditure was justified by the giant, looming Soviet threat (which collapsed of its own bloated weight). Since 1991, the military-industrial complex has been searching for a new "nemesis". They tried Panama, Iraq I, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq II. The current war is proof enough of the intentions of the this complex : to get more money appropriated by the Congress (for more expensive, newer, and "better" weapons), by "proving" to their constituents (through fear and misinformation) that they is a phantom danger which requires more money for defense. It is nearly impossible to tell the head from the tail of this unit. All the elements have almost fused into a giant entity.It is funny to think that WWII signaled the start of this entity, while also going against Washington's warnings (US first becomes entangled in NATO in 1949) and leading towards our current polarized and unmoral political situation. The problem with this complex is that is does not what is best for the country, but what is best for itself. This is not moral. Senator Byrd made that point when the Congress voted to give the executive branch the right to invade a foreign nation without provocation; that there was no debate, no look at the consequences of their actions. There was only silence. It's interest leads the country into situations that allocated many, many resources that could be used internally (Eisenhower had a cost list of what he could do locally with funds allocated for bombers, tanks, missiles, etc). Senator Robert Byrd also made the point that the US military budget from a few years ago was larger than the other 18 members of NATO combined and China. This movie tries very hard not to be a one-sided story. It gets some of the constituents of this entity to speak in their own words. The movie does not point fingers at political parties but rather at institutions and individuals. I don't know how people cannot acknowledge the truth in this movie. Whether or not what this movie's message appeals to your political thought or not, you cannot deny the truth no matter how much it doesn't benefit one's situation. You can ignore it, pin it on a patsy, or try to deny it, but you cannot hide from it. It would seem the movie would end on an pessimistic tone, but this is not true at all. It is very encouraging. This complex should be responsible to us. They are working with public (tax) money and Congress is full of our elected representatives, responsible to the people who elected them. We don't like what is going on, then we must do something about it. Freedom is not sitting at home watching your ass get fatter while eating fast food and drinking a beer. We need to get off our asses and make them listen to us. If they are not satisfying us, we get ones who can. Oh, where is the next George Washington ?? That is exactly what we need right now. It is funny how much his name is used to justify things he wouldn't have supported (also see God). Oh well. History will record this time as the end of the Republic and the rise of the American Empire. Sic semper tyrannis.-Celluloid Rehab