Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Very nicely produced. The idea of of weapons manufacturers being involved in promoting wars is certainly not new though. You can call it "war corporatism" if you want, but it used to be called the military-industrial complex. And around the time of the first world war, it was called war profiteering.

This piece is very slick, with a high production value, but is also high on assertion and low on actual information.

My thoughts exactly. I would have liked to hear what his sources were, too. But nice production values and a killer accent detract from that necessity, eh?

Still, I like the heart behind it.

*promote

Re-promoting this video to the front page as a VideoSift Classic. Originally published on Tuesday 11th April 2006 (promotion called by gold star member THEREALBLANKMAN)

since i was just looking for this again, for dft's attempt to sift it up?

regarding dag's mention (above) of what this phenomenon has already been known as, for a long time - the military industrial complex.

for anyone who may just be too young, perhaps, and didn't know it already?
that term was coined by none other than the guy in charge of the machine, at the time.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, on his very last day in office. Jan 17, 1961.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex
http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhowers-Farewell-Address-to-the-American-People

ps. those aren't copies of eachother. they both use the original eisenhower address, as well as other footage.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'animation, barry mcnamara, politics, war' to 'animation, barry mcnamara, politics, war, corporatism, corporate, fascism, fascist' - edited by my15minutes

Tags for this video have been changed from 'animation, barry mcnamara, politics, war, corporatism, corporate, fascism, fascist' to 'barry, mcnamara, simon, robson, politics, war, corporatism, corporate, fascism, fascist' - edited by my15minutes

and since, this time, it was kp trying to sift it?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Corporate-Fascism-None-of-us-really-matter-to-them

i thought the new tags would help. also, gave credit to co-creator Simon Robson.

http://www.lostinspace.com/htm/crew/simon_robson/index.shtml

^careful, people might "label" you a "conspiracy theorist" :-(

thanks for the links my15, and I like your new avatar

^ thx! and, regarding the label?
in this case, they'd also have to slap that label, on none other than WW2's General Of Everything, and the last Republican president i liked, Dwight David Eisenhower.

so, in this case, it'd be a label i'll happily wear. "Hello. My name is Fuckyou Warpigs."

ps.
Ike also boinked his secretary, while president, everyone!
i didn't give a shit about it in his, or Clinton's, case.
not really pertinent, i know. but i so rarely get a reason to discuss Eisenhower.
and i like to use the word 'boink'.

wow, I didn't know that about his secretary. I figure there's so much shit we don't know about back then since information was not as abundant and easily obtainable.

too bad we can't change our screen names here at videosift as I really like "Fuckyou Warpigs"

For what it's worth -- I couldn't have cared less about Clinton's boinking while in office... but lying under oath is perjury, no matter how you slice it. As our national leader, and a lawyer to boot (!!!), he could have simply told the truth and turned the tables on the prosecutors. Oh wait... they were trying to establish a possible pattern of sexual harassment. Nevermind.

Lest we forget: "I smoked, but didn't inhale." Wow... just wow.

^ ross - point taken, but i've never much cared about that either, because as far as i'm concerned, it was a question he never should've had to answer. shoulda' never gotten that far.

i don't believe for one minute, that any of them really believed Monica was sexually harrassed.
Monica sure didn't seem to think so.

and lest we forget - i smoke pot too. so what? i think every adult human being should be able to do so, legally. by our government's own accounts, about 20% of the country does, illegally, anyway.

so, i also don't give a shit that he lied his way around a stigma, that's attached to weed for no good reason. if we had our priorities straight, he wouldn't have had to lie about what he did, while Bush freely admits to being a major cokehead, and alcoholic, and merely points skyward to make it all wholesome.
fuck.
that.

^ my15 - agreed. My point is simply that a person with integrity would either decline to answer a question about his sex life or his drug use or simply admit it and face the issue head on... and at worst, dodge the issue. But to outright lie about it? Or try to under oath? It's offensive and we should hold all politicians to a higher standard than that. The tragedy is that Clinton was a good president and I'd have voted for him again without blinking if he'd simply been straightforward instead of lying in the hope he'd never get caught. Tony Blair complained that he could never get Clinton to commit to doing anything and was relieved when Bush took office because he felt like Bush would make promises, and then follow through on them. Clinton's nickname was "slick willy" for good reason.

You want to see integrity? Watch Barack Obama in this clip (I don't think I sifted it, so you're welcome to if you wish):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8

^ hell yes, i wish to! done!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-Obama-I-inhaled-frequently-That-was-the-point

and yeah, i know the additional points you made, above, are valid as well. just a matter of small variations in our internal political value systems.

but i think we clearly both understand and appreciate eachother's positions, which really don't differ much, all things considered.

thanks, ross!

war corporatism - Daddy Warbucks in the Little Orphan Annie comic strip ~1925

Hey, no prob.

>> ^Memorare:
war corporatism - Daddy Warbucks in the Little Orphan Annie comic strip ~1925

potentially, sure.

which is why there's one thing, that's never supposed to happen.
you're never to allow those who would profit from warfare, to decide whether or not warfare is warranted, or conducted.

a corporation has one legal responsibility: to attempt to make a profit, at all times, for its shareholders.
i have no problem with that.
so long as anyone connected to that corporation, has no conflict of interest, by being in a position to decide, whether or not their products get used.

dig?

^my15 is there a graphic chart that shows which corporations owns which defense companies and which media companies??
it would also be interesting to see which corporations (media companies) had what stance before the war or which ones have profited the most

^ all in a single chart? not that i'm aware of.

but, especially given the content of this sift?

i'd say this makes a pretty handy chart.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

geo321 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because geo321's points are already fully charged.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

*length=2:40

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:40 - length declared by Boise_Lib.