Syriana: The Movie

[Zero Angel]

I just watched it. I will flat out say that it was a movie completely changed my perspective of how big business works. It is a sobering look into the kinds of things people will do for money and power, and how it is tied into politics. And just how much the world depends on oil.

I thought it was a boring movie at first, you look and see all these disjointed stories mixed in with a little bit of 'propaganda', but if you look a little longer you will see how each character is manipulated at each point and how the machinations of these companies use control and smokescreens to manipulate and pacify their opponents, in a game where nobody wins except those doing the manipulating. Unlike most movies, it doesn't try to seperate everyone into a group of good guys and bad guys, everyone is either honorable or dishonorable, the players or the played. It's a gruesome watch, and probably the most dystopic and sobering movie that I have ever watched. To be quite honest I felt a sense of both fear and wonder when I watched the movie and I hated it right up until the end.

It's very much like bad tasting medicine.

[joft]

but it's not real!

[Zero Angel]

It is only partially not real, but things like what happened in the film *do* happen for real when a lot of money is at stake. Think of the kind of greed that say, Enron, was founded on; people in that company were not 'evil' if you worked in a middle management position there, you would just be doing what you're told, seeing what you're supposed to see.

You would be a good guy for example, but when the end comes you discovered that you never worked for anything real, the guys at the upper level knew what was happening all along, you never knew about the document shredding, the allegations, until it was too late.

Now, look at the war on terrorism. Terrorists killed what, 2000 people in the 9/11 attacks? There are almost 300 million people in the US. Yet your forces are out there, losing much more lives and killing much more than that in order to 'bring democracy' to the middle-east, you 'proved' in the small country of afghanistan that it wasnt about oil, then the US government decided that it is now the world's policeman and that it's time to bring democracy to iraq? To prevent those 'madmen' from getting their hands on a nuke and using it against us.

Now think about it, lets say we left Iraq alone and they did get their hands on a WMD, maybe a nuke capable of leveling a whole city, or enough nerve gas to hit 8 of the populous cities and take out 40% of each cities populations. If they were to actually launch an attack, they would kill millions of american citizens, maybe 5 million, maybe 20 million, but the US would still stand; and the US could launch enough nukes in the counterattack to completely obliterate everyone that lives in that country and it would be justified! Its like saying, 'you're not allowed to have guns, you must fight with spears, because only we are allowed to have guns, because we are responsible'. Do you see something wrong with that picture?

You remember reading swift's laws of power, right? Well, some of that is based on 'The Art of War', a philosophic strategy manual that teaches you underlying concepts of strategy such as controlling what people see. Have you ever heard of sociopathic managers? sociopathic soldiers? Sociopaths make the best soldiers, they are not afraid to die, they are not afraid of anything, especially not their conscience; sociopathic managers often rise to the top ranks because they do *whatever* is necessary to complete their goals, they can fawn over their superiors when necessary, everything they do is a manipulation and they become experts at predicting what kind of reactions their behaviors will have on their target.

You, joft, for example, are a good guy. You are honest, honorable, and probably a lot more courageous than I am. However, just because you are good doesnt mean that everyone else is. There is no limit to what human beings are capable of.

I liked that move now, because it's making me seriously think about these things.

(I will not even get into what kind of deceptions that created Canada and America, because you already get the point.)

[Zero Angel]

Previous to the Iraq war, Saddam had snubbed the US trade embargoes and had began to trade with the europeans and especially Chinese. In fact, Oil trading currency for the longest time had been the US dollar. Iraq wanted to halt this 'food for oil' program and slavery to OPEC, and begin to make profit off of their OWN natural resources so agreed to exchange with the Chinese, using the Euro as their oil currency.

The problem with any sort of virtual currency, is that it can be easily manufactured and supplied massively, it does not have to represent real objects, like say, gold does. The American dollar is manufactured massively and why is this? because they want to 'make money', and what better way to do this then to spread it all around and say that it's your money? If the American dollar began to fail as being the oil currency then it would fail to represent something valuable (oil) and thus begin to represent nothing.

As soon as Saddam switched to the euro and began to deal with other countries the euro seen a spike in value and the american dollar began to drop, he had to be stopped for the good of the american currency and the wealth of the US. Think of it this way, if the oil countries began to trade in euros the US dollar would collaps and the recession would be so bad that people would have to work as hard as slaves just to earn a living, either that or they would have to become bush people and all of the technology and opulence would be replaced by third-world like conditions and possibly the fragmentation into nation states. (However, I am beginning to speculate.)

The problem will make itself evident if the US decides that Iran is a terrorist stronghold and must be conquered because the oil WILL run out some day.

[Mercury_Quirks]

I watched that movie a little while ago, and I really liked it except for the fact that I'm terrible at recognizing people in movies, and can usually only tell characters apart from the fact that there's only one person that looks a certain way. There were maybe five characters that I could indentify easily. I kept mixing up a lot of the older men, which ruined some of the big moments because something would happen to someone and I couldn't remember who they were and therefore exactly why it was so bad that they did what they did.

I think my confusion lessened the effect of the movie a bit. But it was still a rather impressive movie and as we walked out my brother and I were both somewhat subdued. I think what really hit home for us was the third world politics aspect of it.

[Zero Angel]

YES! It is an extremely hard movie to get and I will admit that I've spent half of the movie in total confusion because the plot starts off with everything so fragmented and irrelevant. I got a horribly uneasy feeling after watching it.

[Mercury_Quirks]

YES! It is an extremely hard movie to get and I will admit that I've spent half of the movie in total confusion because the plot starts off with everything so fragmented and irrelevant. I got a horribly uneasy feeling after watching it.

Ah, good. It wasn't just me. I hate when I find myself having difficulty following a movie. I almost want to watch it again to get the plot figured out but on the other hand I tend not to rewatch movies that heavy.

[Tolbruk]

If they were to actually launch an attack, they would kill millions of american citizens, maybe 5 million, maybe 20 million, but the US would still stand; and the US could launch enough nukes in the counterattack to completely obliterate everyone that lives in that country and it would be justified!

The United States (or any country for that matter) cannot afford to lose 5 million people (or even 2000) in a nuclear or other type attack. So what, the US still stands..its not about the survivabity of the country, the issue is ensuring the safety of there citizens. No country should be put into the position where they are actually considering launching a counterattack to obliterate everyone the other country where only a handful of people in that country are responsible for making bad choices.



Its like saying, 'you're not allowed to have guns, you must fight with spears, because only we are allowed to have guns, because we are responsible'. Do you see something wrong with that picture?

You have got to be kidding? You're talking about leveling the playing field so all countries have nukes? Nuclear weapons are not guns or spears.

Granted, the US is hypocrital when it comes to exporting weapons to any country (or faction) it chooses regardless of the country's leadership or moral standing. But then, if a country sells weapons to another, they're not in the position of having to worry about losing 20 million people if they do (referring to conventional weapons).

[Zero Angel]

The United States (or any country for that matter) cannot afford to lose 5 million people (or even 2000) in a nuclear or other type attack. So what, the US still stands..its not about the survivabity of the country, the issue is ensuring the safety of there citizens. No country should be put into the position where they are actually considering launching a counterattack to obliterate everyone the other country where only a handful of people in that country are responsible for making bad choices.
Absolutely, about that no country should be put in a position where they even consider a counterattack. HOWEVER, the US has hundreds of nukes and is a militarily aggressive country. If any other country was that aggressive and had those capabilities, they would be a huge threat to world safety and peace, but I digress.

Anyways, the thing I want to focus on here is capability. If any country gets a nuke, then it becomes impossible to nuke without the threat of mutually assured destruction and in its own right it gains increased fortitude and military resepect. It is outright foolishness for ANY country to use nuclear weapons in this day and age, but it is also foolishness to deny them the ability to defend themselves, unless of course you are not that country.

Certainly a country is responsible for the safety of its citizens, but what about the fighting men who end up getting pissed on by an ungrateful people, thousands of american soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all to wipe out this invisble demon of terrorism.

The original reason for fighting was to eliminate terrorism, but terrorism is based on hatred and fear. Do you really believe that it is possible to eliminate hatred and fear with more hatred and fear? What about the hatred and fear at home? Increasing police funding and social spending? Certainly these would help, but instead the government decides that the demons are outside and that by throwing money and lives at it they can eliminate it.

I'm not buying that, the Bush administration is very intelligent despite their excuses and blundering, and not to be underestimated. I believe their reasons are far more strategic than eliminating terrorism and spreading democracy.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Let me get this straigh - a George Clooney film made you change your political opinions?!? It's not real FFS! It's complete and utter one-sided mawkish bullshit! Watch Team america, that will set you straight.

[Zero Angel]

No, it simply opened them up a bit and I started to do actual research to find out whether events based on the movie were real, dig around, stop being fed by CNN or wherever you get your horseshit.

[aklight]

Thanks, I'll check it out!