Lord of war

R

richardallen

Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
1,101
with Nicholas Cage. Anyone watched it? I just finished. Very disturbing movie. I dont think I'll sleep well tonight, and that really happens rarely because of a movie. In fact, only twice so far.

Keno
 
I thought it was really well done and had a pretty realistic portrayal of the mentality of arms dealers.

The thing I remember most was the young escort with AIDS and her philosophy about safe sex.

btw - What was the other movie?
 
I thought it sucked. Never cared for anti-gun propeganda, but the main problem is, they managed to make it a totally boring movie with characters you couldn't care less about.
 
Not sure it was really anti-gun propaganda. But I guess you can see it that way if you really want to.

The other movie was '"Das Experiment".
 
richardallen said:
Not sure it was really anti-gun propaganda. But I guess you can see it that way if you really want to.

The other movie was '"Das Experiment".
Click to expand...

It was pretty blatant. I guess you can see it differently, if you really want to.
 
I thought that it was a great movie. Not exactly much fun, but there is big business in military stuff.

The message was that we have a huge military industrial complex that has always looked for ways to make money and lots of it. That was Eisenhower's departing message, but few people listened.

The U.S. is one of the largest arms dealers in the world. Guess who our biggest client is?

Yes, we sell 5 billion worth of big stuff each year to Saudi Arabia.

They don't come to us for Chinese rifles.
 
I liked the movie, although it wasn't what I was expecting. I went looking for a trademark Cage action film with some good comedy thrown in, and I got an actual legitimate drama.

It's a movie about inernational arms trading to third world combatants. I don't believe the NRA supports the illegal trade of firearms to "lords of war." There really isn't an issue there...the ethics and legality are pretty clear, it seems to me...

So if the hidden propaganda of the film is "illegally trading guns to America's enemy's and irreresponsible so-called leaders that use them to perpetuate gang-like violence is wrong," then I can get on board with the propaganda claims. I just didn't know there was a debate there that needed the propaganda to back it up.

No offense meant, and while I understand that my tone online can be pretty strong, and the fact that I'm intentionally misrepresenting RF's position to make a point, I simply wished to restate the argument from my perspective.
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
It was pretty blatant. I guess you can see it differently, if you really want to.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it as anti-gun; rather as a rare well balanced portrayal. I think it made a mockery of most of the current anti-gun arguements; not to say, that it was pro-gun either. For a movie that told a story about an arms dealer it was moot on the morality of arms and focused instead on the immorality of man. The scene that comes to mind is the one where the thugs are butchering refugees with machetes, even as the arms deal progresses. Clearly, you do not need guns or arms to kill, you just need to want to do so.

n2s
 
I saw it in the theater- it's worth seeing. Not great; not awful.

Makes you want an AK, if you don't already have one. :thumbup:

Best scene is when he gives away the planeload. Some happy villagers right there. Lucky kids.


Mike
 
Selling sophisticated US arms is not only profitable, but a political lever and reward. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, powers with empty wallets unload weapons to nations that should not always have them. Powers with madmen at the helm will give terrible weapons to terrorists someday.

Russia needed cash but few to none would buy Russian small arms. Why? They can stamp out their own. Thank you, Mr. Kalishnokov.

The cold war 'worked'- that is, evolved into something good, because no one wanted to die, and Russia was broke. Radical Islam wants to die. How will arms parity ever work again?

I'd like to see the movie. If it does have a subtle anti arms bias, that will be too bad. Especially as conventional arms are not the Demon we have to fear.

My son wants a Swiss Army knife. I'm afraid to give him one. He'll forget and take it to school. Zero tolerance means serious consequences should he be found with a 'weapon'. This is arms control; my good 10 year old son who will never hurt anyone at jeapordy.

Wandering all over the place. Sorry.


I do like Nicholous Cage.


munk
 
I never new either that being anti illegal gun sales to warlords and dictators meant being anti-gun. Well, you learn something new everyday.

In fact, i thought the movie really emphasized the fact that guns dont people kill people, but people do.

Evil prevails, when good men dont act. Cage says - "Evil prevails." No matter what. He's just selling the means, not pulling the trigger (except once). I didn't really see *anything* anti-gun in it.

...

I liked it. It reminded me a lot of 'Blow' with Johnny Depp, although the stories are really not the same. It hurt watching it, seeing all the wrong decissions he makes but understanding most of them at the same time. The death his arms cause but you still know it wouldn't change a thing if he'd drop out of it.

Maybe it's just me though. I'd recommend it.

Keno
 
I took an anthropology class about Africa last semester.

Many classes were unhappy ones, and I often found myself shaking with anger, or blotting away tears. There is little good "human" news in Africa.

That's the big point of The Lord of War to me. 3rd world conflict is brutal, but that should be no big surprise: 3rd world life is often brutal. I see it every damn day, and struggle to retain some sympathy. (Poor munk; I didn't mean to vent on you, brother.) I still would protect little kids, but am really not sure if I'd stop the dog pack from killing the teens. I've even rooted for the dogs- go around! Flank them! (That's what happens when you see these little rock-happy bastards catch some poor dog against the fence, struggling to get out of the barbed wire, as they pelt him with almost brick-sized rocks. You start to cheer for the other side.)

Yes, I'm serious. And sad.
---
Hell, I remember being 19 and 20 when the Soviet Union was falling apart. Mig 29s were going for $30 grand. Air superiority fighter for the price of a Volvo. I was pissed I didn't have the funds for one, or the grand I'd need for a T-72.

John
 
My brother-in-law is from Africa. I have had conversations with him that left me like Spectre after his classes. Africa is a wreck and the rest of the world doesn't care. They profit from it. The resources are drained and nothing is reinvested. Triangle trade of a differnt sort is going on there and all the revolutions and warlords are a part of keeping it that way. Part of it is the Africans' fault, part of it is the exploiters' fault. It is heartbreaking and nobody has come up with a solution to change it.
 
My son played soccer on a team with the son of Ugandan refugees last summer. Another couple of kids on the team were kids of Bosnian refugees.

The Ugandan man went to use a portable toilet, and suddenly backed away from the john, babbling something about a plastic bag. Someone had put a rolled up disposable diaper in a grocery bag just inside the door. It apparently looked exactly like the disguised lumps of plastic explosive that had killed neighbours and family in Uganda. The first people to understand his terror were the Bosnians - who quickly reassured him that "It's not that - it's not that!" The mom turned to us: "If you've lived where there was a war ..."

I haven't seen Lord of War yet, though I might. I've got enormous ethical problems with the global arms trade. I'm not anti-gun, but I'm anti-amorality and anti-greed. Sure, people have always and will always fight each other. That doesn't make it fine for me to tool up to make a buck selling more effective weapons to thugs than the rocks and pointed sticks they'd undoubtedly otherwise use.
 
TomFetter said:
...Sure, people have always and will always fight each other. That doesn't make it fine for me to tool up to make a buck selling more effective weapons to thugs than the rocks and pointed sticks they'd undoubtedly otherwise use.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about selling weapons to those who want to defend themselves from these same thugs. would you limit them to sticks and stones too?

n2s
 
My Ugandan friend didn't need his own plastic explosive to defend his family. He needed a functional country. It's a travesty that he could only get that by leaving his home.

As we know from Afghanistan, sometimes people's apparent friendships change. I'm not suggesting that it's wrong to defend yourself, or to assist someone else to do the same. But selling military arms shouldn't be done lightly, nor with eyes shut ... and not with the primary motivation being profit. Black market arms sellers will sell to anyone, so long as their money's good.
 
Once again while I think that a countries production of military arms should be for it's own army and not exported, I think the big problems in 90% of all hotspots are #1 Too many people and #2 not enough resources. Now I guess we can say there is an exception in like the oil or mineral rich countries, but I belive that this is because prior to the value of oil being so great, these countries were mostly dog eat dog too.

If we could see maybe a bit of reduction in the birth rate of some of the hotspots, and an increase in the more educated and affluent we might see some change.
 
I get the feeling a lot of these posts are at cross purposes.
I doubt very seriously Richardallen is anti gun, if someone suggested that.

How does one define ethics with arms sales? Are only sales between governments permissable or ethical? I still remember the genocide in Yugoslavia because of an 'arms embargo'; and the muslims got wiped out.

I heard the same thing then - internationally from Germany,England, and France, that I hear here from Handgun Inc ; 'we don't want to introduce even more arms into a viotile situation."

There are some comparisons between international sales and domestic sales.

How about a world where only the US Government decided who could buy arms? Or the UN? Pakistan didn't want India to be a nuclear power while they were not. How would the fight over disputed lands go then?

There were some weapons/materials found in Iraq, with dates on them post embargo- French manufacture. Russia and the US for years supplied weapons when it suited them.
There is a type of parity/balance in these sales, is there not, internationally?

I gather from those of you who've seen the movie we are talking about tribal and small faction war and genocide. A lot of African nations have had revolutions. Are they very different from say, the Spanish 'revolution' right before WWll? The French sold us longarms when we fought the British for independence. Weren't French privateers selling arms to the Confederates later?

Since it is a hopeless mess, it is probably best to allow small arms sales.
It is the only way to even get a sloppy parity.

When enough force and money is brought to bear to stop small arms traffic, you know it will be the UN and it's gang of hypocritical, sanctimonious, whining enablers who will be calling the shots. No thanks.

I think Spectre is right about third world living conditions and brutality. Look at Nepal; look at LA.


munk
 
Munk, I guess sloppy parity's maintained if there are no limits on small arms sales. I still don't think it washes away the immorality of selling weapons to b@stards like the Janjaweed Militia, or either side in the Sierra Leone civil war, etc. Nobody was in any doubt about how the new weapons purchased by these pieces of scum would be used.

In such cases I don't know what the answer is, but I have a fair idea of what it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top