MovieChat Forums > The World Without US Discussion > REVIEW CONTINUED - COMPLETE BIASED PROPO...

REVIEW CONTINUED - COMPLETE BIASED PROPOGANDA

posted 13 years ago by thornsthorns
18 replies | jump to latest

Very biased and One sided look at US role in the world, and what could potentially happen if the US became isolationary.

To be honest the documentary is quite entertaining enough, but due to its excessively biased viewpoint (hidden by an air of neutrality) it frankly made the whole program a worthless endeavour on an educational front. A more realistic neutral outlook of the US and what would happen to the world without the US would have been better. Its really A 1.5 hr long justification of US military imperialism.

The whole program is merely geared towards justifying US occupation of other nations on the 3 grounds
1) The world needs the US to police it, as no one else is willing to do it
2) US is doing it out of global interests including the invading peoples interests, and other countries benefit. And these people want them there.
3) The world would descend into ww3 if the US became isolationary

Frankly I found the documentary to be just to ridiculous. While it makes a few interesting points its really all just propaganda.

Examples of its biased arguments are

1) Kuwaitis live better than Americans, therefore invasion of Iraq and liberation of Kuwait was a good thing and not about stealing oil.

Completely ignores how Iraqis' were murdered in their millions due to the occupation and their oil was and is being stolen by the billion. It’s just disappearing.
Completely ignores how iraqies are living in abject poverty whilst this is happening.
Completely ignores the fact that Kuwaitis number only a million people, and stealing trillions of dollars of oil from Iraq and Kuwait, whilst keeping a million Kuwaitis happy with no taxes is not hard. Try doing that to a nation the size of Iraq, and the whole of Middle East it’s not so easy.

1b) Program says US went to war to defend Kuwait, yet still buys Kuwaiti oil from them, which no empire has done before. Then overlays images of Hitler and USSR stealing oil from their annexed nations.

This Completely ignores the fact that the US did not go to war with Kuwait, but with Iraq. And it is they who are the US's victims not kuwaities. Had Saddam Hussein and Iraq been given control over Kuwaitis entire oil fields. It would have meant Saddam could easily control global oil prices up and down as he saw fit.

2) If US does not interfere genocide will occur in these countries like in Yugoslavia, that is why the US interferes militarily. And the people of these countries want them to save them.

It delves into the collapse of Yugoslavia and justifies US military interference of other nations, on the reasoning US was the only one that stopped the civil war there, no one else did. And tries to imply that is why the US is invading other countries.
But then brushes over the fact that the US chose not to interfere in many other instances of genocides. Which occurred before and after Yugoslavia and still do to this day.

3) WW2 started in Asia with the invasion by Japan? Where the hell did they get this oxford professor from?

The oxford professor (Niall ferguson - who seems to have this habit of justifying the crimes of western imperialists too often from rothchilds to kissinger) they use in this program really has a skewered version of history, it’s almost laughable if it wasn’t for the fact he is being taken seriously as a professional. WW2 started in Europe, anyone with half a brain knows that. WW2 militarily started in Europe with the axis and allies forming their little groups, which then guaranteed war. They were militarising their armies and industries 10 years before the war even started, both sides, both the allies and the axis. WW2 economic and political causes lay in WW1 another world war started by Europe. Japan joined the axis, but did not start the war. This program tries to lie about this.

4) Israel will be wiped off the face of the map quite easily if the US did not protect it, due to its weak and small military.

This is such a HUGE lie. The Israeli military has NUCLEAR weapons, state of the art military navy, air and land force. The entire Middle East could not stand more than 1 week against the Israeli military, and that is a fact that this program lies completely about.

5) Middle east would descend into chaos, and the Middle Eastern people want the US there. They do not feel it is right for the US to benefit from their oil, without guaranteeing civil peace there.

Again another huge lie. The vast majority of people in the Middle East do not want the US or any western country on their soil. Whilst it is true if the US left, the Middle East would potentially descend into chaos. That chaos would not last for more than a few years if not more than a few months. The Middle East does not have a manufacturing industry unlike the west, and a sustained war is not possible without bullets, guns, tanks, grenades, missiles, choppers etc. So none of the nations in the Middle East would last long in a war with their neighbouring nation for long. If they had to rely on their own military and manufacturing industries. They would be forced into becoming 1 giant nation either by 1 side winning, or by the need for peace.

This of course assumes the US also leaves the Middle East militarily and financially by not selling arms to both sides, etc. One of the reason the Iran Iraq war last for nearly a decade was due to the fact that the US-EU were selling arms ILLEGALLY to both sides, Iraq and Iran, so no side gained an advantage. And trying to drag the war out for as long as possible to destroy their industries and get them into usury debt. Known as the iran-contra affair.

6) Completely ignores Africa
One thing about people, who want the US to stop interfering in other nations, is they want the US to stop selling arms to sides in a time of war. The US is the biggest arms dealer in the world, and 1 way they do this is by selling arms to both sides in a conflict in a way so that they are equally matched and the war never ends and perpetually drags on. This causes the nation to fall into heavy financial debt to the west, to the IMF, World Bank, US, EU etc. The US and Europe have a long history of doing this in Africa, in order to get nations into debt so as their corporations can then enter these nations to acquire rights to oil, gas, minerals, diamonds at dirt cheap rates in order to pay for more weapons and clear their debt etc.

How Africa would not be better off if the US stopped interfering in their countries in such a manner beyond most honest people. And the presenter of this program probably realised that he could not possibly put a spin on this so he completely ignores Africa like it doesn't exist.

7) Ignores largely the main reason why the US interferes in other nations, until it talks about china (and then only as if china was the third Reich of Asia).

This is such obvious propaganda; it uses arguments such as china feels as if it was on the wrong side of the 20th century and plans on being on the right side in the 21st century. An argument Hitler and many Germans used over ww1 being unfair on Germany.
Then overlaps this with huge pictures of Chinese military men carrying very sharp knives and dancing about in fast motion like they are Nazis.

But to the point, the main reason the US interferes in other nations has always been to prevent competition. The US does not like competition for its economy, for its military, for its banking industry, or for any other of its industries.

Its military is about containing and preventing nations from potentially becoming a competitor that could take away their privileged status is the main reason why the US goes to war. That is why it invaded Vietnam, to weaken USSR and the spread of communism, not to weaken Vietnam some nobodies in the in the Far East. It was a warning to everyone else, becoming communist and we will invade you.

Example
Had Saddam Hussein and Iraq been given control over Kuwaitis entire oil fields. It would have meant Saddam could easily control global oil prices up and down as he saw fit. Hence the iraq invasion to maintain control over oil supplies.

Example
Program ignores the fact that Arab nationalism is a huge problem for the US as Arab pan-nationalism is very popular. Most Arab nations wish to unite into 1 big super nation. Such a nation would control nearly the entire of the world’s oil and gas markets. They could cripple Europe and US overnight if they placed sanctions on these nations. Which they most likely would have done, given the Israeli-Palestinian issue, an issue they are fanatical about to resolve in their Palestinian Arab favour.

[–] jeebus1983 12 years ago

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

Interesting review but shows your own biases. I won't answer your points in full but a few faults I find are:
Dismissing the opinion that ww2 started in Asia and the interviewee for saying them is flawed. While it is true that most scholars put the start of ww2 in Europe it is also true that Japan, a main belligerant and member of the axis powers began their conquest long before. In fact, the "rape of Nanking" occurred 2 years before Hitler invaded Poland.
--

The rape of nanking is not the start of ww2, it is the start of the rape of nanking. You cannot make an isolated incident between 2 nations into a world war. World war 2 started in europe.

proof is simple. if japan had never invaded nanking, would ww2 still be a world war? of course.

If the war in Europe between, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, USSR, and their automatic allies and colonies had happened (e.g. canada australia, egypt, india) had never happened but rape of nanking still did? would it still have been a world war? No of course not. An isolated incident whislt part of world war 2's history is not the start or the cause of ww2.

--------------------

Also claiming it is ridiculous that Israel will be destroyed if a nuclear armed Iran saw an unprotected Israel as a target after a hypothetical U.S. exodous is curious. Israel has been attacked on multiple occasions by non-nuclear Arab neighbors and managed to fight them off often with the use of weapons and aide from U.S. and European supporters. Without those weapons and aide such a small country would be in for a terrible fight. Nuclear exchanges, fierce battles and massive uman losses. Win or lose...it would be devistating.

-------

whilst i disagree with you in Israel has been attacked by its neighbors, i find the reverse to be true, israel attacked its neighbours by stelaing their land who then retaliated. I will ignore that point.

Whilst it is true that Israel relied on US and European weapons and arms, it no longer needs to do so, even though it still does. Whilst the Arab nations still need to rely on US and EU weapon imports. Even iran has no realistic domestic weapons industry, its weapons being largely imported from Russia and china.

israel also has its own nuclear, biological and chemical weapons industry, all 3 weapons of mass destruction. This is why no Arab NATION has attacked Israel since this fact became evident. Israel's manufacturing and weapons industry is the largest in the middle east, and i believe israel is the 4th maybe 6th largest weapons seller in the world.

Israel no longer needs any nations help to survive in the middle east. Their domestic Nukes guarantee that quite easily.

-----------------------------

A third point I feel the need to address is that you seem to imply that the best course of action in the Kuwait / Iraq disbute would have been to let Iraq take over and everyone would be happy. Regardless of any oil related objectives the fact is that U.N. intervention preserved a nations sovereignty and saved them from the rule of an often brutal dictator. I'm sure many Kuwaiti citizens would not share your views.

-----

Duh? that is the whole point of the documentary isn't it. US minds its own businesses.

But to answer your point.
1) US did not interefere in other crimes committed by other nations, such as hutu and tutsis in africa, rwanda etcetera. So we can agree this act was not done to help the kuwaiti people, even if it did help them.
2) Kuwait has always historically been not a part of Iraq, but Iraq. Kuwait and Kuwaitis do not exist, it was created by the US and Britain when they discovered 10% of Iraq's oil lay under that little piece of land after ww2. So they decided to turn it into a different nation. Just like the Arab emirates. therefore to murder and destroy the wealth of 90% of Iraqis so that 1% of Iraqis (i.e. kuwaities) can live like kings is not a good act in my books.
For people who like to twist reality, sure pretend you are heroes for stealing an entire nations wealth and giving it to fat sheiks who spend it on Mercedes and traipsing around Las Vegas, rather than it being used to feed the people who this oil belongs to, i.e. all Iraqis including the millions of iraqis who died and still die from malnutrition whilst the sheiks in Kuwait spend their oil money.
3) yes i do think the best course of action would be if the US did not interfere in the middle east. This includes them never having supported and put Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq in the first place, by having the democratically elected leader overthrown, just because he nationalized the oil industry in Iraq. Don't forget Saddam was a CIA patsy, who overthrew a democratically elected government with US help.
Even if Saddam had taken over Kuwait, US should not have interfered. Just as the Arab spring occurred and Mubarak, and other dictators where overthrown. So would Saddam have been inevitably. This process needs to occur domestically without foreign intervention for a nation to grow and become a real democracy, an independent self reliant democracy, so that there is not civil war. Instead of the farce that is sectarian violence we see now. If the sunnis, *beep* and kurds had all been forced by necessity to band together to overthrow Saddam, the sectarian violence we see now would largely have been controlled and a stable government formed, instead of the civil war brimming we see now.
We see this lesson in all of mankinds history.

----------

Overall, I agree that this was a biased documentary but no more so than many by other filmmakers such as Michael Moore who espouse more popular viewpoints. While his movies are celebrated as revelations this movie is slammed for being biased. Well...they both are. The only notion of truth one can get comes from watching both types and trying to find what lays in the middle. As a U.S. citizen part of me would very much like to withdraw from our thankless positions as the U.N.'s attack dog but I know that, while the consequences wouldn't be as grave as those implied in this film, there would in fact be consequences to the world. We have propped up many nations for so long that many have come to depend on us, and leaving them to their own fate is simply not feasible as the world is now. There is a grain of truth to be found here, but truth none the less.
-----

pile of tosh in my opinion. You can justify your neocolonialism as much as you want, but at the end of the day it is still colonialism. and every country on the planet is better off without colonialism.

[–] Grifman1 12 years ago

Japan had invaded China several years before fighting started in Europe. In fact Japan's invasion of China led to US economic sanctions which then led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. So it is not inaccurate at all to say WW2 started in Asia. You're the ignorant one here, I am afraid.

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

The rape of Nanking is not the start of ww2, it is the start of the rape of Nanking. You cannot make an isolated incident between 2 nations into a world war. World war 2 started in Europe.

proof is simple. if japan had never invaded Nanking, would ww2 still be a world war? of course.

If the war in Europe between, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, USSR, and their automatic allies and colonies had never happened (e.g. Canada Australia, Egypt, India etc) had never happened, but rape of Nanking still did? would it still have been a world war? No of course not. A small incident whilst part of world war 2's history is not the start or the cause of ww2.

just read up on your own nations history. USA froze Japanese assets illegally, stole their money they had paid to buy US oil and steel for, which US never delivered i might add.
http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapanprint.htm

[–] Aronofskyistheshizzil 12 years ago

I have never seen an unbiased political documentary. However ops post in infinitely more biased than this film was. This was nowhere near as biased as a Micheal Moore or Oliver Stone documentery. I say this and I agree with most of their political leanings. This was a rather even handed documentary. It defiantly had a conclusion made up and as the film progressed it tried to lead you more and more in that direction. I agree a lot of the imagery was ridiculous, biased, and ment to persuade but it was still probably the most non-biased political documentary I have ever seen. That is probably why it has such a meager rating. It didn't cheerlead for either side of the debate. The film poses that American Imperialism could be scaled back. It also states that the U.S is often on the wrong side of freedom in some conflicts when it conflicts with U.S interests. It is true that it doesn't delve into these facts but it does state them.

[–] MrSirreal 12 years ago

4) Israel will be wiped off the face of the map quite easily if the US did not protect it, due to its weak and small military.

This is such a HUGE lie. The Israeli military has NUCLEAR weapons, state of the art military navy, air and land force. The entire Middle East could not stand more than 1 week against the Israeli military, and that is a fact that this program lies completely about.

Israel does have the most advanced military in the Middle East, as well as the most nukes.

But she would have serious problems defending herself against a well-orchestrated first strike from a nation or coalition with a strong military. In fact, military studies since the early 90's show that no nation in the region would have much chance of surviving a well-orchestrated first strike. Therefore, each nation considers pre-emptive action to be the only option in the face of a threat. This is what makes the Middle East so unstable.

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

Given Israel has nukes, no preemptive strike is going to be successful in beating Israel without mutual assured destruction guaranteed. that is why Israel is safe from external threats, its only fear is from its own internal Arab population, who it cannot nuke.

[–] fooser77 12 years ago

Just finished watching this on Netflix. Made in 2008. Clearly a stab at a "Ron Paul" type. I'm wondering what neo-con faction funded this. Always follow the money. Speaking of money, The answer to "can we," is now most academic. The answer is, "No, we can't." The United States government now has financial obligations to the tune of $222 trillion dollars. That is, $222,000,000,000,000. Make sure you count all those zeros.

The U.S. govt, and the "we the people," that have sanctioned it, has basically taken out a loan to the tune of said amount. (Do we really need to count all those zeros again?) This is against total assets of less than $94 trillion to date. That is the collateral given against the loan. How then does America intend to pay this back?

Want to visualize $222 trillion? Take a building, about the footprint of the World Trade Centers 1 and 2. Fill the first floor with $100 dollar bills. Stacked one on top of the other, from floor to ceiling. That would be ONE trillion dollars. One floor, one trillion. WTC1 and WTC2 were 110 floors each. Do your own math from there.

America is bankrupt. No one nation can be the policeman of the world. It is simply economically impossible.

And, another perspective on interventionism...

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

I would believe that one that has earned TWO Medal of Honors would know what he was talking about...

[–] Val-El 11 years ago

222 Trillion??? Interesting numbers.

The national debt at this point is what just under 6 trillion?

[–] SavageHenry82 11 years ago

16 trillion, but close.

Poetry is wasted on whores

[–] glanemann 11 years ago

Unfunded liabilities. That 16 trillion is the "official number", but the real debt is far worse.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It's more like 125 Trillion if you look at the unfunded liabilities. That is the stuff that we need to pay for but don't have the money yet.

[–] bureau203 11 years ago

The problem I have with this doc is that it assumes that the nations we defend will just roll over and die without our help.

Japan spends 1% of its GDP on its military. So they could essentially double their military if they increased it to 2% - still only half of what we spend on our military. Why can't they do that?

The answer isn't that they can't, it's that they won't because they don't have to. We are defending them. Why spend the money if America is willing to do it for free? This is the problem all over the world.

Europe is the most egregious case. They are as rich as we are, but somehow they cannot defend themselves? Nonsense. They're taking advantage of us.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Herbiegreatone 11 years ago

I wish that I had the time to get into a serious debate with you but I don't. So I will simply say while I see you're point of view and you have obviously done your research, but you are in fact quite wrong on just about everything. I would highly doubt that you have spent as much time in the middle east/eastern Eyrope/Asia, sat in as many briefs, or had nearly anywhere near the first hand experience I have had in the areas talked about in this film. If you have then I apologize, but if you haven't maybe you should reevaluate your opinions until you have seen first handed exactly what you're talking about. I'm not trying to claim that I'm an expert but I would like to think that I have had a good deal more experience in seeing the true effect of a global American presence than most, and contrary to what the Media and most people on the Internet say an American presence is appreciated and needed throughout much of the globe.

"Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win your still retarded."

[–] jacobarnett 11 years ago

Your review is the most Anti-American biased *beep* I have read. Well done. Almost all of your points are wrong. By your logic, we should go back and rewrite EVERY BORDER of any country that has any problem with it. How about we start with Pakistan and corral all those Pashtun into "Pashtunistan" so they can have their Taliban. Pakistan and Afghanistan both applauded us for helping get rid of the Soviets but then blasted us for letting the Taliban come to power and ultimately destroying their countries.

Do you think it's ok for Saddam to cause a war with Iran that killed 900,000 people and then try to take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? You're a fool! The ramifications of this would have been devastating to the region and the world economy!

Israel was hit by a SCUD Missile fired from Iraq during the Gulf War, so your idea that it would last without US support is a bunch of *beep* as well. Remember that Osiris Nuclear Reactor the Israelis destroyed with American F-16s? Sure you do.

Do you know that Iranians (Shia Muslims) believe that THEY CAN CAUSE ARMAGEDDON and bring back the 13th Jaim Mahdi? They would fire a nuclear weapon, there is no doubt. North Korea is a pretty unstable country, but their leaders enjoy a fine lifestyle and life in general. Iran's Theocratic Government has a leader who is a religious authority figure who believes in martyrdom as way to heaven.

Another point you are wrong in the US being the world's largest arms dealer. Russia is the largest small arms and ammunition dealer in the world. Hellooooo it's not M16's they're using to murder people all over the globe. It's AK-47s/PKMs/RPGs pal. We export more in missiles and weapons used in defense by developed nations, not Sudan and Rwanda.

And you are burying your head in the sand on China. They are building up their military at a rate incomparable to any other country in the world. They are also traditional close allies of North Korea. So yet another point you've tried to downplay to failure.

And South Vietnam never wanted to be communists, so why are you blasting the US for trying to stop the spread of communism? Ridiculous.

Sorry bro, but your rhetoric is much more biased than the documentary was. If you think for a second that South Korea/Taiwan/Israel/Japan would still be sovereign nations without any US support, you're smoking crack.

Also, you're lying about Millions of Iraqis dying during the Gulf War. LOL. I love how idiots like you embellish things just to get your falsifactions across to people. Not even a million people died in the nearly decade of the Iran-Iraq war (900,000)on both sides put together!! So tell me how in 3 months we killed a Million Iraqis? Haha

Get out of here and take your BS with you

[–] DougWilliams88 11 years ago

Excellent review by the OP. This movie utterly sucked. I thought I was going to watch an objective look at how the rest of the world might move on without the US military breathing down their throats, instead I got Bush & Cheney's vision of the New World Order.

Worst movie ever.

[–] Empyre_of_Dyrt 10 years ago

Thought he was going to see something biased in the other direction. Got surprised. Throws fit.

.
.