![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)