Avatar review

[_Kevin Graham]

I didn't think the movie was sending a message about Iraq in particular, but it does describe America and corporate America going to other parts of the world, exploiting the poor and milking them of their resources. The examples are plenty, not just oil from Afghanistan. Dick Cheney in 1998 said, ""the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."

But my favorite example is when an American corporation managed to privatize water in Bolivia, even the water which fell from the sky! Citizens in the town who were caught collecting rain water were guilty and could have their homes ceased. You just can't make this stuff up. American corporations are designed to serve one purpose: increase profits. There is no moral conscience involved. They get away with some of the most heinous things abroad because third world countries run by dictators usually provide environments friendly to profits. This is why corporations are able to have such strong influence over our foreign policies.

And thanks to the CIA, America is one of the worst terrorist nations of the 20th century.

[_bcspace]

The examples are plenty, not just oil from Afghanistan.

There are no such examples from Iraq much less Afghanistan, unless you've a got company dealing in opium now. lol

There are indeed some bad examples that liberals like to latch onto, but usually it's more a case of a socialist or otherwise dictatorial regime nationalizing the business or skimming the profits. Chavez's Venezuela is a prime example. Capitialism has always been the only effective and reasonable solution to the world's problems.

But my favorite example is when an American corporation managed to privatize water in Bolivia, even the water which fell from the sky! Citizens in the town who were caught collecting rain water were guilty and could have their homes ceased.

That is not privatization.

[_Kevin Graham]

== There are no such examples from Iraq much less Afghanistan, unless you've a got company dealing in opium now. lol

I never mentioned Iraq. I am referring to the fact that an interest in Afghanistan involved building a pipeline from the Caspian Sea, which during the 1997 was declared by congress as a "zone of vital American interests”. And a year later Dick Cheney, then CEO of Halliburton, said "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." American Corporations were doing business with the Taliban during the 90's, discussing the details of a future pipeline going through the country. At some point corporations concluded it would be in our interests if the government was just overthrown, since the Taliban were not bending to their will. Vice President of Unocal addressed the House of Reps and said the Taliban should be removed by force because things were not going so well with business negotiations. Then when George Bush became President, he brings with him Dick Cheney. In April 1999, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan reactivated the pipeline project excluding US interests.

In May 2001, the Taliban was threatened by a US official who told them, "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." They didn't like that, and what we got in return four months later was 9-11. But FOX news never mentions this, nor does Limbaugh, so I can understand why this must be news to you.

== There are indeed some bad examples that liberals like to latch onto, but usually it's more a case of a socialist or otherwise dictatorial regime nationalizing the business or skimming the profits.

Actually that is just Limbaugh rationalization trying to sweep a history of American terrorism under the carpet. The CIA has a notorious history of supporting/financing or replacing/assassinating dictators, depending on how it serves American corporations/interests.

== Capitialism has always been the only effective and reasonable solution to the world's problems.

Only if you think equality among the people is a problem. Free Market capitalism I am all for, just not at the corporate level. Capitalism gone unchecked results in monopolies, so to exclude government completely is just crazy. The corporation is an evil entity that is given full rights but is not liable. This all took a turn for the worse at the turn of the 20th century when corporations were able to convince Supreme Court judges that they should be considered a legal “person.” A corporation has no conscience, let alone a moral one, and it is designed to do only one thing: to maximize profits at all costs. They are even legally obligated to do that. It frequently crosses the line of legality and only operates within the law if its cost-benefit analysis says it is the more profitable route to go. Otherwise, it will gladly choose to pay fines and continue breaking the laws. The reason they go to third world countries is to take advantage of environments friendly to their profit motives. That’s it. It has nothing to do with running from high corporate taxes. They are after cheap labor and lax laws that let them exploit the local citizens and abuse their environments. They have no moral conscience or obligation to consider anything other than the bottom line.

== That is not privatization.

Of course it is. What else could it be? The company made it a crime for citizens to collect rain water. It claimed total control of all water.

[_richardMdBorn]

In May 2001, the Taliban was threatened by a US official who told them, "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." They didn't like that, and what we got in return four months later was 9-11. But FOX news never mentions this, nor does Limbaugh, so I can understand why this must be news to you.

The planning for 9-11 far predated this. It can be traced back to the mid 1990s, long before OBL moved to Afghanistan.. How much control did the Taliban have over OBL and al Qaeda in May 2001.

[_Kevin Graham]

You're right about this Richard, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the operation was initiated shortly after we threatened to bomb them, and after Clinton had already sent a few cruise missles into the area. I think bin Ladin has always considered America and the USSR and even Saudi Arabia as an axis of evil.

Back in the 80's we found in Afghanistan a way to attack the USSR through the back door, by providing the Afghans with stinger missles. They fought our war for us, and when it was all over, Afghanistan was a country in ruin. More than 50% of the country was under the age of 14. Congressman Wilson (go see the Tom Hanks movie "Wilson's War") started this by encouraging Congress to fund the effort, using the argument that genocide was taking place and we needed to help the Afghans. But funding only increased after we saw how many Russians they were killing - because that was our only interest. In the end, congressman Wilson warned Congress that Afghanistan is in a very fragile state, that it could easily be overrun by radicals and so he requested a mere 1 million dollars to fund the reconstruction of schools for the children there. We refused. Even after flooding Afghanistan with billions for military equipment, we refused to help with rebuilding with a million dollars. Why? Because we didn't care about the Afghans like we originally said, all we care about was seeing our interests served. Once that goal was met, we pulled out.

So what happened is that young, impoverished, and ignorant Afghanistan turned into an area ripe for political amd religious extremism. So Osama bin Ladin moves over there and makes camp.

The fact is 9-11 never would have happened if Corporate America had not insisted on going to the Middle East to milk it of its resources. It had pissed off quite a few people, but America didn't care because we were doing "business" with the Arabian monarchy. The monarchy in Arabia was cool with it because all the wealth from the oil went to them, not to the poor in the region. The poor receive nothing, which is why Osama bin Ladin is viewed by so many as a hero for the commonfolk. He viewed Saudi Arbia as an enemy to Islam because it got in bed with the enemy. This was always bin Ladin's complaint: America's military presence, patroling its coasts for decades. How would we feel if we were a country with no military and the navy of Iran was patroling the coast of Florida while their tankers were exporting 90% of our natural resources? That's why the Cole was attacked by those who felt their land was being invaded and even desecrated by infidels.

Anyway, this is far more plausible that the usual right wing mantra that says they just want to blindly kill Americans because they are just jealous of our freedom!

Like Noam Chomsky said, when they do it it is terrorism, when we do it it is counter-terrosim.

It really blew my mind when I found out that we were just as guilty of terrorism as any Muslim radical. They all claim to be acting in retalliation or in self defense. Osama bin Ladin has said he would cease military operations only if America would just leave Islamic lands. He doesn't give a flying crap what freedoms Americans think they have.

It appears we started this if timelines mean anything. The CIA planted a bomb in the public arena in Beirut under Reagan, killing dozens of innocent bystanders. Do ya think that pissed off many revenge-minded folks? Most Americans don't even know about this, or don't care. We're in our own little world disconnected from the rest. All we know is what our television tells us, and our TV receptions are owned and operated by corporations who shape public opinion and foreign policy. And where are our moral, religious elite? Generally on the side of corporations. It makes me sick.

[_The Nehor]

I think the problem with Avatar is the same problem that came with Dances with Wolves. The natives are portrayed as a group of people without jerks or mistakes within it. The Navi are an idealization that cheapened them.

I would be okay with the movie letting the natives win but I wanted at least a part of me to root for both sides. The movie made it impossible.

For those who want an entertaining review, check here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

[_Kevin Graham]

The natives are portrayed as a group of people without jerks or mistakes within it. The Navi are an idealization that cheapened them. I would be okay with the movie letting the natives win but I wanted at least a part of me to root for both sides. The movie made it impossible.

So you prefer a FOX News version of reality just for the sake of quenching one's desire to root for a certain side? Sometimes there is no reason to root for the bad guys, even if they happen to be members of your own race.

I watched "Dances With Wolves," and I remember it was the Pawnee who were the evil natives. They started the movie slaughtering innocent pilgrims and later started slaughtering their own kind. So it isn't accurate to say they were protrayed as a group without jerks. Far from it actually. But who can really argue we were the bad guys? We came from Europe and weeded them out of their own lands that they had been inhabiting for centuries.

[_The Nehor]

So you prefer a FOX News version of reality just for the sake of quenching one's desire to root for a certain side? Sometimes there is no reason to root for the bad guys, even if they happen to be members of your own race.

No. As I said, I am happy to root for the Navi in the movie. What I resent is the idealistic brush with which the Navi are painted. They were actually boring because they weren't believable. If our own history is any indication, savage races can be as cruel to each other as we can be.

I watched "Dances With Wolves," and I remember it was the Pawnee who were the evil natives. They started the movie slaughtering innocent pilgrims and later started slaughtering their own kind. So it isn't accurate to say they were protrayed as a group without jerks. Far from it actually. But who can really argue we were the bad guys? We came from Europe and weeded them out of their own lands that they had been inhabiting for centuries.

I'm not prepared to defend European exploitation of the Americas. They moved in, some for idealistic reasons, some for greed, and most somewhere between the two. They largely screwed up.

On the other hand, I'm not prepared to view the Natives as characters from 'Pocahontas'. There were a lot of Indian raids that had nothing to do with 'reclaiming their land' or 'fighting the foreign oppressors' and everything to do with stealing and exploiting the new people.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, I think it is a bit presumptuous on our part to think this native tribe, if it ever existed, would have to be primitive and have bloodthirsty element just because that is the history of our own species.

[_The Nehor]

Well, I think it is a bit presumptuous on our part to think this native tribe, if it ever existed, would have to be primitive and have bloodthirsty element just because that is the history of our own species.

Then why did their society have weapons? They seemed to know how to fight in the final battle. There are other tribes.....

They are too much a rip-off of our idealization of primitive cultures to escape being real by using the 'alien' card. They were built to be sexual for the love story and designed to appear innocent. Imagine if the Navi were Geonosians from Star Wars or looked like the aliens in the Alien movies? They're not intended to be truly alien and fail at all attempts to be seen that way.