here is why this movie is unrealistic

I agree with most of your posts except:
a. The last point. These things happen. Why do you think saddam was killed? It's almost exactly the same situation as in the film.

b. Matt Damon did a decent job in this movie, in my opinion.

good post.ive learnt a lot from that.

i wonder if someone could do the same from a liberal viewpoint.

RESPONSE TO CRITIQUE:

1. the chinese would not passively accept the loss of their contract to an american firm. they would retaliate, and it would be very public

From the events depicted in the film, we don't know whether the China National Petroleum Corporation sued the Emirate for breach of contract or not. Even if they did, it would not have altered the trajectory of the story very much. Note that the U.S. oil company (Connex Oil) did not sue the Emirate when they broke Connex' contract and went with the higher-bidding Chinese.

Since the early 1970's, oil exporting countries have won a lot of latitude, and they have taken unilateral actions on many occasions, such as the contractual changes demanded from Exxon-Mobil by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela when oil prices rose in 2007 and 2008. Also see the Mobil-Libya dispute.

2. the cia would not kill the would be emir who had the backing of china, and its military. (no, china would not attack the US but they would certainly stop helping the US on the North Korea file, and they would certainly help iran any way they could). nor would they be so bold to kill him just as he was about to overthrow his brother. there would be a huge outcry and it would be very public

At the time if his assassination, Prince Nasir is no longer in power, and apparently holds no position in the Emirate’s government at all. For that reason, his assassination is potentially no international incident, and potentially no one will raise an inquiry about who killed him.

For more see this post:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/board/flat/122352255?p=3&d=122 355191#122355191

As for what the CIA would and would not do, as you may know, the CIA played a major role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954, so it is certainly plausible.

3. there was no reason to send bob to lebanon. especially considering it was a drone that took the prince out anyway. and there is no way they could blame bob as a rogue agent for the bombing, as they were intending to do, since he does not have access to a drone plane

Bob's mission was to meet with the mercenary assassin Mussawi to arrange the demise of Prince Nasir in a way that would look like an accident. He tells Mussawi, "I want you to drug him, put him in the front of a car and run a truck into it at fifty miles per hour." It is only after Bob's mission fails and Nasir launches his coup attempt that the CIA opts for a drone strike.

It is not clear how the CIA will spin the Nasir assassination, but they've already spun the story that Bob is something of an entrepreneurial rogue. They can say that Bob did the deed with a car bomb, and deny any agency involvement. No one saw a drone - too high to see from the ground.

Your objection misses the film's intent, which is to say that if these kinds of things are not already happening, they will be in the near future, as oil demand outstrips supply and the situation intensifies. Peak Oil will wreck the industrialized world as we know it, sooner or later. There will be (more) oil wars. It is probably unavoidable.

4. wahabi suicide bombers dont join up because they're poor and have no job prospects. most are middle class and are committed to their religion. the boy in this film is shown to have NO religious or political motivations. this movie has the madrasa teachers talking about free trade. what? this movie completly ignores the real political and religious motivation behind al qaida and their sympathizers

The talk of free trade was presented in the context of western imperialist actions in Islamic countries. As communicated over and over by Islamic extremist terrorists, a key issue has been foreign (western) presence, including foreign military presence, in Islamic countries.

As for the socio-economic status of Wasim and his friends, the film does not say "here's the typical scenario for suicide bomber recruitment" - it just shows one of a multitude of potential scenarios. The scenario depicted rings true - Wasim has no job or money, he is stuck in a foreign country with a father who is an ineffectual dreamer, he can't speak the language (Arabic), and he is an impressionable youth who is influenced by the people at the Madrassa who take him in and feed him.

5. the CIA would be VERY concerned that a missle similar to the one that blew up the USS cole was just stolen by an arab. also, the CIA is actually known for one thing - being completly in the dark as to anything going on in the middle east. the idea that they have a competent agent in iran is laughable. the cia has been so wrong on so many things in the middle east

By the end of the 10-year Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, there were literally tens of thousands of Stinger missiles than had disappeared into the black market, and so no, the CIA would not be particularly concerned about one. Also, Bob told his management that the missiles had been rigged to explode 10 feet off the ground, as a way of ensuring that they would not be used. The “blue-eyed Egyptian” Mohammed Sheik Agiza indicated as much to Wasim and Farooq at the madrassa, which is why he elected to use the missile as he did.

As for whether the CIA has competent agents in Iran and the Middle East, one can only hope!

6. the head of a law firm would never have enough political power to have a seasoned cia operative decommissioned. this is conspiracy stuff. there is a reason the movie doesnt show what these political connections are exactly. the plumber-cia connection is never shown for good reason.

It is an established fact that representatives from the major oil companies were members of Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force" prior to the invasion of Iraq, along with the CIA and the military, and that the task force spend a good deal of time reviewing Iraq's known oil reserves. This came to light thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch. The George W. Bush administration contained more ex-oil company executives than any prior administration. If you do not understand that the Iraqi invasion was done at the behest of the U.S. oil industry, here on the cusp of the beginning of the global oil depletion era (post Peak Oil), then you haven't been paying enough attention.

7. worst of all was the actual dialogue - the black lady who gets briefed by clooney, the goofy guy from the "good girl" movie who gives that laughable speech about corruption, all the dialogue by chris cooper. the dialogue is clearly written for an audience that is assumed to have no knowledge about the middle east. you just cringe when you hear these people talk, like they are trying to be profound with their obvious platitudes (no *beep* the oil is running out matt damon. that was no good will hunting)

It seems that you brought a hypercritical attitude to your viewing of the film. I thought that the dialogue was brilliant and dead on. The most realistic depiction of these players ever.

Matt Damon may have not been the best casting decision for the nerdy Bryan Woodman character, due to his strong character in the Bourne film series. Bryan Woodman is no Jason Bourne; he's a market analyst at a Swiss energy trading company who quickly gets in over his head with Prince Nasir's doomed reformist cause.

8. DOJ prosecutors would never stop an investigation after getting just two bag men because "it's in the interests of the american consumer to have this merger go through". if that was the case then dont prosecute anybody. in real life these doj prosecutors would spend millions over years trying to indite everyone they could to make a name for themselves. they are notorious for overstepping their bounds

No, they wouldn't spend millions, not if they were told to cool it. The Bush administration had DOJ and other enforcement agencies drop certain kinds of cases. And the Obama administration has too, for example "defense of marriage act" cases and the recent changes to deportation policy centered on whether illegal immigrants have been convicted of crimes.

Just look at the uneven application of monopoly / antitrust laws - there's been so much industry consolidation since the 1980's, and clear evidence of price fixing in numerous industries, but very little prosecution.

Here again, Syriana is saying look at the real world and how dirty this industry is - since Syriana, the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico exposed how the industry had invaded and hobbled the MMS, the federal governmental organization charged with regulating the industry - they turned it into a travesty.

9. to quote charles krauthammer:

I will not repeat Charles Krauthammer's entire blather here. Krauthammer's perspective is so partisan that I think he is incapable of understanding something as nuanced and multidimensional as Syriana. That he thinks "actual U.S. policy in the real Middle East" has anything to do with "Wilsonian idealism" is just sad,just as Bush's rhetoric about "spreading democracy" was specious propaganda. His unrestrained accolades on Hamid Karzai are most laughable - 6 years later.

And Krauthammer's assessment of the Pakistani youth Wasim as "the moral heart of the film" is flatly absurd. Wasim is a dupe, an innocent recruited to a perverse cause he didn't recognize or understand, all wrapped in idyllic religious trappings. His story is not one of purity and idealism, it is one of manipulation and betrayal, and the sweet accompanying music is irony.

in the movie's defense, of course oil influences foreign policy, and of course the cia is an instrument of this policy. but so what? it doesnt make the US evil. whether you like it or not or realize it or not, you have an interest in the success of american industry, and the american government has an interest in the success of american industry.

Yes! And Syriana says all that - maybe you missed it. Several characters make that case, including all the oil men and their lawyers, the Deputy National Security Advisor and the CIA managers. Syriana actually challenges all points of view - no one gets away without having their notions questioned.

Example:

JIMMY POPE (to Bennett Holiday): ”We use one quarter of the oil in the world, Bennett. Your house is light and warm and my house is light and warm, but what if it was that way half the week, or none of the week. Hell, China's economy ain't growing as fast as it could because they can't get all the oil they need. I'm damn proud of that fact.”

the shaw in iran was better than the ayatollah.

The Shaw was a brutal dictator installed by western governments to de-nationalize Iran oil. Read about Mosaddegh instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Recent_history_.281921.E2.80.93prese nt.29

people fail to see just how worse off we would all be is the US pulled back and allowed other powers to fill the void it leaves

Yes, and this reality is why Bob couldn't figure out what to say to Prince Nasir when they meet on the highway.

Read this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/board/flat/122352255?p=3&d=122 995334#122995334