How corporate America ate Hollywood | Questions that make you think... | Forum

Please consider registering
Forum Scope


Forum Options

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
How corporate America ate Hollywood
Forum Posts: 621
Member Since:
June 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
December 31, 2011 - 5:56 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

There once was a dream called America that was primarily founded on the idea that free men could and, most definately, should break the ties and tyranny of British rule; thereby forming a 'more perfect union'. A traitorous act punishable by death at the hands of the 'Crown'. Many high falutin society remarked how the pesky outlaws would soon find a grave end to their insurrection and the odds looked decidedly good for the great British empire. The Americans were tough as nails though and, through their faith in God, trust in each other, superior ideology/attitude and a little help from their friends, managed to defeat the British, much to raised eyebrow and shocked expressions. Using democratic process and a 3 'equal but seperate branches' approach to federal governance, the founding fathers crafted a nation based on radical ideas like "all men are created equal" and Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are Rights that come only from the Creator; not from any kind of government. Few in those days could possibly envision how the inherent advantages of a free people would catapult the newly formed United States of America into the shining beacon of hope that inspired so many in other countries to take a chance, sell everything and just get there. It could be observed that the U.S. was the world's biggest beneficiary of the industrial revolution. That is where this story of corporate osmosis begins; mass production, buying and selling, the mad dash for natural resource.

This just happened recently and I realize it's probably more posturing and hot air than anything serious, but event_horizon made a comment about fighting wars for the benefit of global corporations instead of national security and it prompted me to use this article as an example of my own concerns about nationalism run amok. ... tolerated/

"Showdown: U.S. Fleet Warns Iran That Closing Straits of Hormuz ‘Will Not Be Tolerated’
Posted on December 28, 2011 at 1:13pm by Buck Sexton Print »Email »
Comments (278)(TheBlaze/AP) — Iran’s navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world’s oil flows.

It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran’s oil shipments.

In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet’s spokeswoman warned that any disruption “will not be tolerated.” The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is “always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.”

With concern growing over a possible drop-off in Iranian oil supplies, a senior Saudi oil official said Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude.

That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. In New York, benchmark crude fell 77 cents to $100.57 a barrel in morning trading. Brent crude fell 82 cents to $108.45 a barrel in London.

“Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces,” Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. “Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway,” the navy chief said.

The threats underline Iranian concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could target Tehran’s vital oil industry and exports.

Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices.

The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran’s central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.

Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.

Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel that they may take military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

The navy is in the midst of a 10-day drill in international waters near the strategic oil route. The exercises began Saturday and involve submarines, missile drills, torpedoes and drones. The war games cover a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of sea off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and into the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea as a show of strength and could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels in the area.

Iranian media are describing how Iran could move to close the strait, saying the country would use a combination of warships, submarines, speed boats, anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedoes, surface-to-sea missiles and drones to stop ships from sailing through the narrow waterway.

Iran’s navy claims it has sonar-evading submarines designed for shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, enabling it to hit passing enemy vessels.

A closure of the strait could temporarily cut off some oil supplies and force shippers to take longer, more expensive routes that would drive oil prices higher. It also potentially opens the door for a military confrontation that would further rattle global oil markets.

Iran claimed a victory this month when it captured an American surveillance drone almost intact. It went public with its possession of the RQ-170 Sentinel to trumpet the downing as a feat of Iran’s military in a complicated technological and intelligence battle with the U.S.

American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate the drone malfunctioned"

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

Forum Posts: 621
Member Since:
June 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
December 31, 2011 - 10:31 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'm having difficulty reconciling my antiwar philosophy with the strong desire for the U.S. to remain the global power it is. Oil is the most profitable business worldwide according to annual Fortune 500 lists ranking global companies by size and profit. ... index.html

Causing me to be aware of erroneous positions taken here at theblackvault through the years; especially concerning terrorism relating to national security. Although, imo, terrorism remains a security problem for America, I'm increasingly feeling that it's used sometimes to strike fear and distrust into people for the purpose of furthering the acquisition of power by the power elite. Some would say, "Go tell that to a family member of someone who perished on 911". True we lost 3,000 that day, another 4,486 Iraq war troop casualties with about 32,000 wounded which makes for about 40,000 dead or wounded. Iraqi casualties are estimated at about 100,000 with some estimates at up to 600,000 and over 2,000,000 Iraqis displaced from their homes due to the war. By those numbers, is it total lunacy that an impartial observer might conclude differently as to terrorists and who is being terrorized? People who throw the guilt trip on this kind of thinking would have you believe that someone who thinks this is not caring about the victims. What is more caring about death and misery - support of war against a country not involved in the terror attacks or support of no war. All I'm saying is, if you put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes during the 'shock n awe', you may have felt terror and have a whole different opinion than us about who the terrorists are. This is where the casualty stats came from... ... umbers.htm

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

Forum Posts: 621
Member Since:
June 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
January 2, 2012 - 5:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

One of the errors is my contention that President Obama should let Israel bomb Iran's nuclear program back to the stone age. Now I see how that was completely arrogant and overly presumptuous. Another is when I supported the policy of open kill orders on American citizens deemed enemies of the state. The chances of it being manipulated and used for nefarious reasons are miniscule, granted, but it doesn't seem like sound constitutional policy.

The core of the question is can America maintain it's hold on the top country of the world position without using that power to, in a sense, break a few eggs and make an omelette. When you think about what exactly is being broken, it should give most people pause to accept a product that is tainted with blood and death caused by military action used for anything else but protection of the American people from a dangerous and imminent threat. That is to say i'm not a complete isolationist and understand the 1898 Treaty of Paris was an important first step in international assertiveness. Sometimes it is in this country's best interest to stand and fight. It seems the policy use to be geared toward stopping the spread of communism. Sometime after the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR collapsed there was a shift in policy to not so much protect against communism but to impose our presence in countries that supposedly harbor the faceless enemy for the new century - terrorism. Orwell would be proud. Now that we're not fighting a particular country or army, but one with soldiers motivated by religious ideology and scattered in different countries around the middle east, can we ever claim a decisive victory without conquering and subjugating all of those countries?

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

Forum Posts: 1631
Member Since:
April 22, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
January 2, 2012 - 11:05 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Here we go again. Greedy oil corporations getting ready to start another war.

You're right about us still being in danger of terrorism, but after 9/11 we went about it the wrong way. We should have had CIA/NSA agents tracking down locations of terrorist groups in the Middle East, and had special forces units go in and take them out; not attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. But I don't think our CIA personnel would have been competent enough to take on such a task. They couldn't get the whole WMD thing right in Iraq.



The mixed breed three-eyed half grey alien half cyclops mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Online:
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10324
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
Luca Norman
Freya Collins
The Savior Messiah
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9401
Posts: 125013


Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25158
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault