Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Climate Data Shows Clear Signs of Warming
Dead Is Dead: Drone-Killing the Fifth Amendment




War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
Heart of Darkness

Heart of Darkness

By Joseph Conrad

more items

 
Report

Torturing Iron Man

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 24, 2008
Iron Man still
gizmodo.com

Nick Turse

Editor’s note: The introduction below, written by Tom Engelhardt, and Nick Turse’s ensuing essay were originally posted on TomDispatch.com.

Back in the mid-1990s, in my book, The End of Victory Culture, I wrote the following about the adventure films of my childhood (and those of earlier decades): 

“For the nonwhite, annihilation was built not just into the on-screen Hollywood spectacle but into its casting structures.  Available to the Other were only four roles:  the invisible, the evil, the dependent, and the expendable…. When the inhabitants of these borderlands emerged from their oases, ravines, huts, or tepees, they found that there was but one role in which a nonwhite (usually played by a white actor) was likely to come out on top, and that was the villain with his fanatical speeches and propensity for odd tortures.  Only as a repository for evil could the nonwhite momentarily triumph.  Whether an Indian chief, a Mexican bandit leader, or an Oriental despot, his pre-World War II essence was the same.  Set against his shiny pate or silken voice, his hard eyes or false laugh, no white could look anything but good.”

Having spent a recent evening in my local multiplex watching the latest superhero blockbuster, Iron Man, all I can say is:  such traditions obviously die hard (even in the age of Barack Obama).  The Afghans and assorted terrorists of the film, when not falling into that “invisible” category—as backdrops for the heroics or evil acts of the real actors—are out of central casting from a playbook of the 1930s filled with images of Fu Manchu or Ming the Merciless:  Right down to that shiny bald pate, the silken voice, the hard eyes, and that propensity for “odd tortures.” 

It’s lucky, then, that, in the real world, the Bush administration has made the decision to expand our no-charges, no-recourse, no-courts, no-lawyers prison network in Afghanistan to hold such monsters.  Give Eric Schmitt and Tim Golden of the New York Times credit for their recent front-page scoop: “The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come… [the new prison will be] a more modern and humane detention center that would usually accommodate about 600 detainees—or as many as 1,100 in a surge—and cost more than $60 million.”  The real money quote in the piece, however, lay buried inside the fold.  The reporters quote an anonymous Pentagon official speaking of the infamous older American prison at Bagram Air Base where some of those “odd tortures” have taken place:  “It’s just not suitable. At some point, you have to say, ‘That’s it. This place was not made to keep people there indefinitely.’ ”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
So, the new prison, then, is apparently for holding people “indefinitely.”  Lurking in that word, of course, is the logical thought that we’ll just have to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, too.  Otherwise, who’s going to do the necessary imprisoning?  Perhaps it’s worth noting as well that, at this moment, the Pentagon is also expanding its major prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca, already stuffed with up to 20,000 prisoners, to hold another 10,000, assumedly in case a future prisoner “surge” comes along, and assumedly once again “indefinitely.”  In fact, when it comes to prisons, the Pentagon and its contractors are the busiest of beavers.  After all, they’ve been expanding Guantanamo in Cuba, too, while Bush administration officials talk idly about shutting that prison down.  Even kids aren’t immune.  A recent report claims that the U.S. now holds at least 500 “juveniles,” mainly in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, and perhaps elsewhere as “imperative threats to security.”  (Guantanamo evidently now has no juveniles only because two prisoners have been held there long enough to grow into adulthood.) 

These are expansive American facts on the ground in two occupied countries where, you might say (though you wouldn’t know it from Iron Man), imprisonment is our middle name and “odd tortures” what we’ve built our rep on.  Of course, at a time when the U.S. is hemorrhaging real jobs, Americans have made quite a living from building and expanding prisons and prison populations at home, too. 

Once upon a time, there was an all-American superhero who fought for “truth, justice, and the American way.”  But that’s passé today.  As a nation, we’re not much into justice anymore; what we’re into is incarceration, punishment, and those “odd tortures.”  It’s increasingly our métier, our truth, the American way.  So maybe Iron Man, an arms dealer by day, is, as Nick Turse, author of the superb exposé of the new Pentagon, The Complex, indicates, exactly the right superhero to illuminate our American moment.  Tom 

Torturing Iron Man

The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuster

By Nick Turse

“Liberal Hollywood” is a favorite whipping-boy of right-wingers who suppose the town and its signature industry are ever-at-work undermining the U.S. military.  In reality, the military has been deeply involved with the film industry since the Silent Era.  Today, however, the ad hoc arrangements of the past have been replaced by a full-scale one-stop shop, occupying a floor of a Los Angeles office building.  There, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense itself have established entertainment liaison offices to help ensure that Hollywood makes movies the military way. 

What they have to trade, especially when it comes to blockbuster films, is access to high-tech, tax-payer funded, otherwise unavailable gear.  What they get in return is usually the right to alter or shape scripts to suit their needs.  If you want to see the fruits of this relationship in action, all you need to do is head down to your local multiplex.  Chances are that Iron Man—the latest military-entertainment masterpiece—is playing on a couple of screens.

For the past three weeks, Iron Man—a film produced by its comic-book parent Marvel and distributed by Paramount Pictures—has cleaned up at the box office, taking in a staggering $222.5 million in the U.S. and $428.5 million worldwide.  The movie, which opened with “the tenth biggest weekend box office performance of all time” and the second biggest for a non-sequel, has the added distinction of being the “best-reviewed movie of 2008 so far.”  For instance, in the New York Times, movie reviewer A.O. Scott called Iron Man “an unusually good superhero picture,”  while Roger Ebert wrote: “The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration… [but] if we must have one more… ‘Iron Man’ is a swell one to have.”  There has even been nascent Oscar buzz.

Robert Downey Jr. has been nearly universally praised for a winning performance as playboy-billionaire-merchant-of-death-genius-inventor Tony Stark, head of Stark Industries, a fictional version of Lockheed or Boeing.  In the film, Stark travels to Afghanistan to showcase a new weapon of massive destruction to American military commanders occupying that country.  On a Humvee journey through the Afghan backlands, his military convoy is caught up in a deadly ambush by al-Qaeda stand-ins, who capture him and promptly subject him to what Vice President Dick Cheney once dubbed “a dunk in the water,” but used to be known as “the Water Torture.”  The object is to force him to build his Jericho weapons system, one of his “masterpieces of death,” in their Tora Bora-like mountain cave complex. 

As practically everyone in the world already knows, Stark instead builds a prototype metal super-suit and busts out of his cave of confinement, slaughtering his terrorist captors as he goes.  Back in the U.S., a born-again Stark announces that his company needs to get out of the weapons game, claiming he has “more to offer the world than making things blow up.”  Yet, what he proceeds to build is, of course, a souped-up model of the suit he designed in the Afghan cave.  Back inside it, as Iron Man, he then uses it to “blow up” bad guys in Afghanistan, taking on the role of a kind of (super-)human-rights vigilante.  He even tangles with U.S. forces in the skies over that occupied land, but when the Air Force’s sleek, ultra high-tech, F-22A Raptors try to shoot him down, he refrains from using his awesome powers of invention to blow them away.  This isn’t the only free pass doled out to the U.S. military in the film.

Just as America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to bring various Vietnam analogies to mind, Iron Man has its own Vietnam pedigree.  Before Tony Stark landed in Afghanistan in 2008, he first lumbered forth in Vietnam in the 1960s.  That was, of course, when he was still just the clunky hero of the comic book series on which the film is based.  Marvel’s metal man then battled that era’s American enemies of choice: not al-Qaedan-style terrorists, but communists in Southeast Asia. 

Versions of the stereotypical evil Asians of Iron Man’s comic book world would appear almost unaltered on the big screen in 1978 in another movie punctuated by gunfire and explosions that also garnered great reviews.  The Deer Hunter, an epic of loss and horror in Vietnam, eventually took home four Academy Awards, including Best Picture honors.  Then, and since, however, the movie has been excoriated by antiwar critics for the way it turned history on its head in its use of reversed iconic images that seemingly placed all guilt for death and destruction in Vietnam on America’s enemies. 

Most famously, it appropriated a then-unforgettable Pulitzer prize-winning photo of Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam’s national police chief, executing an unarmed, bound prisoner during the Tet Offensive with a point blank pistol shot to the head.  In the film, however, it was the evil enemy which made American prisoners do the same to themselves as they were forced to play Russian Roulette for the amusement of their sadistic Vietnamese captors (something that had no basis in reality).

The film Iron Man is replete with such reversals, starting with the obvious fact that, in Afghanistan, it is Americans who have imprisoned captured members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (as well as untold innocents) in exceedingly grim conditions, not vice-versa.  It is they who, like Tony Stark, have been subjected to the Bush administration’s signature “harsh interrogation technique.”  While a few reviewers have offhandedly alluded to the eeriness of this screen choice, Iron Man has suffered no serious criticism for taking the imprisonment practices, and most infamous torture, of the Bush years and superimposing it onto America’s favorite evil-doers.  Nor have critics generally thought to point out that, while, in the film, the nefarious Obadiah Stane, Stark’s right hand man, is a double-dealing arms dealer who is selling high-tech weapons systems to the terrorists in Afghanistan (and trying to kill Stark as well), two decades ago the U.S. government played just that role.  For years, it sent advanced weapons systems—including Stinger missiles, one of the most high-tech weapons of that moment—to jihadis in Afghanistan so they could make war on one infidel superpower (the Soviet Union), before setting their sights on another (the United States).  And while this took place way back in the 1980s, it shouldn’t be too hard for film critics to recall—since it was lionized in last year’s celebrated Tom Hanks film Charlie Wilson’s War.

In the cinematic Marvel Universe, however, the U.S. military, which runs the notorious prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where so many have been imprisoned, abused, and, in some cases, have even died, receives a veritable get out of jail free card.  And you don’t need to look very closely to understand why—or why the sleek U.S. aircraft in the film get a similar free pass from Iron Man, even when they attack him, or why terrorists and arms dealers take the fall for what the U.S. has done in the real world. 

If they didn’t, you can be sure that Iron Man wouldn’t be involved in a blue-skies ballet with F-22A Raptors in the movie’s signature scene and that the filmmakers would never have been able to shoot at Edwards Air Force base—a prospect which could have all but grounded Iron Man, since, as director Jon Favreau put it, Edwards was “the best back lot you could ever have.”  Favreau, in fact, minced no words in his ardent praise for the way working with the Air Force gave him access to the “best stuff” and how filming on the base brought “a certain prestige to the film.”  Perhaps in exchange for the U.S. Air Force’s collaboration, there was an additional small return favor: Iron Man’s confidant, sidekick, and military liaison, Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes—another hero of the film—is now an Air Force man, not the Marine he was in the comic.

With the box office numbers still pouring in and the announcement of sequels to come, the arrangement has obviously worked out well for Favreau, Marvel, Paramount—and the U.S. Air Force.  Before the movie was released, Master Sergeant Larry Belen, the superintendent of technical support for the Air Force Test Pilot School and one of many airmen who auditioned for a spot in the movie, outlined his motivation to aid the film: “I want people to walk away from this movie with a really good impression of the Air Force, like they got about the Navy seeing Top Gun.” 

Air Force captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department’s project officer for Iron Man, may have put it best, however, when he predicted that, once the film appeared, the “Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars.”  Maybe the Air Force hasn’t hit the Top Gun-style jackpot with Iron Man, but there can be no question that, in an American world in which war-fighting doesn’t exactly have the glitz of yesteryear, Iron Man is certainly a military triumph.  As Chuck Vinch noted in a review published in the Air Force Times, “The script… will surely have the flyboy brass back at the Pentagon trading high fives—especially the scene in which Iron Man dogfights in the high clouds with two F-22 Raptors.”

Coming on the heels of last year’s military-aided mega-spectacular Transformers, the Pentagon is managing to keep a steady stream of pro-military blockbusters in front of young eyes during two dismally unsuccessful foreign occupations that grind on without end.  In his Iron Man review, Roger Ebert called the pre-transformation Tony Stark, “the embodiment of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in 1961—a financial superhero for whom war is good business, and whose business interests guarantee there will always be a market for war.” 

Here’s the irony that Ebert missed:  What the film Iron Man actually catches is the spirit of the successor “complex,” which has leapt not only into the cinematic world of superheroes, but also into the civilian sphere of our world in a huge way.  Today, almost everywhere you look, whether at the latest blockbuster on the big screen or what’s on much smaller screens in your own home—likely made by a defense contractor like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or Toshiba—you’ll find the Pentagon or its corporate partners.  In fact, from the companies that make your computer to those that produce your favorite soft drink, many of the products in your home are made by Defense Department contractors —and, if you look carefully, you don’t even need the glowing eyes of an advanced “cybernetic helmet,” like Iron Man’s, to see them.

Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Adbusters, the Nation, and regularly for Tomdispatch.com. His first book, The Complex, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America, was recently published in the American Empire Project series by Metropolitan Books.

Copyright 2008 Nick Turse


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Neville Ross, January 23, 2009 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yet another crappy movie review that doesn’t get it at all.

Tony Stark becomes Iron Man to right wrongs and do something good with the technology he created, not what this critic said. If Stark was such a war-mongering prick, he wouldn’t have gone to the degree that he did in changing the way that his compan6y was run, or go to the excessive degree that he in the comic book by trying to make sure that nobody had his Iron Man armour but him (the Armour Wars storylines of the early-to-mid-‘80’s.)

Here’s a better review of Iron Man:
<li>http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com/2008/05/movie-review-iron-man-2008.html</li>

Report this

By nomad, May 28, 2008 at 9:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The point Turse tried to make in his article is that movies like this are a form of pro-military / pro-America propaganda. Yes, Stark sees the error of his ways and decides not to build anymore weapons of mass destruction. BUT he still builds a suit capable of doling out death and violence at his will.

Report this

By great_satan, May 28, 2008 at 1:38 am Link to this comment

The man who wrote that has no clue. Like the first poster said…how do you misinterpret a movie based on a comic book.

  Actually, it’s quite true to the comic. When Iron Man first came out in the early 60s, he was a military contractor like in the movie, but he spent years fighting commies. Then, as the college-aged readers of comics in the 60s turned hippie, the main character turns against his old profession.
  The Hulk too has been attacking the US Army, or defending himself against them.

  Anyway, i think the film makers did an excellent job at reeling in the young testosterone filled young guy with all of the explosions, the mac-daddy callous, casual attitude toward war and women,...then suddenly the story takes a big turn. I saw it in theater that had also seated a good number of young republicanish, sports and war enthused young men. There was much hooting and hollering as Iron Man blasts the AlQueda guys or whatever they were, but a pensive hush comes over them as he makes his announcements to stop manufacturing weapons.

Report this

By amilius, May 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s always hard to take commentary seriously from someone who misses the story line in a movie based on and true to a comic book.  Tony Stark is motivated to become Iron Man because of the horrors wrought by the weaponry he has designed and produced which his partner has illegally supplied to terrorists.  It was pretty simple in its disgust with the military industrial complex and war.  To miss something so obvious and explicit so as to reach a predetermined rationale for one’s argument, which I generally agree with but not in terms of the movies he chooses to tar, leeches credibility from every word that follows.  What kind of PR comes from using real hardware for situations that illustrate such things as offensive over-kill and ill-advised to use outside of a movie?  Nick really should have stayed and paid attention to the rest of the movie.

Report this

By Phi, May 25, 2008 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t find this movie pro-military. One of the major plot arcs involves the main character becoming ashamed of his weapons profiteering and wanting to strive towards a more ethical use of his time and money.

“...he refrains from using his awesome powers of invention to blow them away.  This isn’t the only free pass doled out to the U.S. military in the film.”

Oh please, him ‘blowing away’ the raptors would have just been plain bizarre in the context of the film.

I’m as anti-war, and as disgusted with U.S. foreign policy as the next guy, but Nick, here you’re shooting the barn and then painting a bullseye around the bullet hole.

Report this

By Don Stivers, May 25, 2008 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

I noted in the movie that children and mothers and fathers are being terrorized by war.

Stark saw this first hand and decided to right a wrong.  He had not witnessed war up close and personal just like our President and Vice President.

Report this

By Chris, May 25, 2008 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Man, you people really need to chill.  It’s a MOVIE.  Escapsim. Fantasy.  Every culture has their escapist fantasies, and I guarantee you others turn their sights on white Americans as the evildoers and lionize their own idealized heroes with superhuman powers, in whatever form is culturally appealing. 

I am no fan of Bush, to put it mildly, so this is not a defense of him or his policies, but holy crap this article and most of the comments take handwringing to a new level.  The average person coming out of this movie is not even aware of the subtle parallels being dreamed up here, they’re lucky if they can remember where they parked.  If anything, they’ll remember it was a fun movie with shiny robot things and explosions, and that the main character went from being a self-absorbed arms dealer to someone who grew a conscience and tried to fix a problem he helped create.  Then they’ll stop thinking about it and try to decide what to have for dinner. 

I suggest the author take a relaxant of some kind and go back for another showing.  Remind me not to invite this guy to my next party.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 25, 2008 at 10:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It must be a slow news day for this “story” to appear.

MARVEL is not doing anything it hasn’t been doing for years. one needn’t go back to the 1930’s for truth justice etc. In the Sixties during the height of the Vietnam War, they resurrected Captain America. The Fantastic Four was the Partridge Family on Steroids. Nick Fury bumped off the bad guys as a soldier first, then as a soldier of fortune, and finally as a CIA operative. Marvel wasn’t alone, DC Comics had Sargent Rock, and a red-white-and blue Wonder Woman. and of course there were endless others.

I also remember watching Vic Morrow on our old black&white;Magnavox, as every Tuesday he beat shit outta them bad ole Nazis… Funny though, all that white-bread all American propaganda coursing into our little prepubescent heads, and still the army had trouble recruiting the real thing from my generation when they turned 18…

Report this

By Charlie, May 25, 2008 at 7:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As his readers know, Roger Ebert has had health problems of late, so he has not yet reviewed Iron Man.  The review on Ebert’s website was written by Webmaster, Jim Emerson.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 25, 2008 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

I don’t read comics, so i don’t know which came first: the comic or the song?  Was the comic inspired by the song?  I figured the film was based on the song, since i know now that it isn’t…i have no reason to see the movie.

The song has nothing to do with the glorification of the MIC.  In fact, the song is about a guy who sacrifices himself for the future of humankind, suffers for it, and then gets shit on by the people he was trying to help…so he plans vengeance on them all.

That would probably make a better all around movie than yet another superhero.

It would be fine for americans to live inside their imaginations all the time if those imaginations weren’t so tiny, constrained, and directed towards certain ends so easily by a lack of critical thinking and a preponderance of propaganda.

Report this

By Hemi*, May 25, 2008 at 5:03 am Link to this comment

There is no end to these movies. “300” was another in the long line. There it was the democratic Spartans versus the Persian hordes that had taken over the rest of the world. That was very subtle, don’t you think? With Iron Man you are asked to believe that superior thinking and technology will protect you in an armor-like cocoon.

The truth can’t be told on screen. The truth is religion will end the world as we know it. The movie depicting a world of runaway population growth, encouraged by Iron Age (ironic no?) fiction will never be produced. You can’t say “our tribe’s better than yours”. You can’t promote fundamental Christianity while bad mouthing fundamental Islam and protecting fundamental Judaism. It’s all intertwined. But you can infer it by blowing up the bad brown, red and yellow tribes in CGI splendor. The Chinese for all their closed-mindedness gave up the ghost of religion decades ago and see clearly the population problem. Perhaps too late for them and everyone.

So how do you delay the inevitable? You convince young people that superior technology will allow them to defeat the Persian hordes for “truth, justice and the American way”. Or you could just tell them the truth that it’s us or them. Nah, what summer blockbuster ever featured truth?

And what branch of the service did Favreau serve in? Oh yeah, the “Cast Guard” of course. A casting couch veteran, what an inspiration. And thank our lucky stars that Robert Junky Jr. was available. And as your children go off to join the Air Force you can rest assured that these two brave Americans have their backs. At least on the big screen.  And you thought John Wayne was dead!

Report this

By i,Q, May 25, 2008 at 4:11 am Link to this comment

i keep waiting for a time-lapse movie sequence to help me organize my life and fall in love, like in the movies when kids throw a house party but then find out their parents are going to be home in a matter of hours and deeply bond as they clean up the house at an impossible rate.

...but a flying military grade weapon suit might just make all that John Hughes ennui irrelevant.

Actually i was thinking the other day about how the ascendancy of the anti-hero has created a vast body of work depicting rule-benders and breakers as the sympathetic protagonist. It’s no longer Michael Landon in a little house on the prairie, it’s Michael Madsen with a straight razor. So long Andy Griffith, hello Peter Griffin.

One has to wonder what the long term effects will be as an entire populace is conditioned to see rule-breaking as an heroic trait.

Report this

By ocjim, May 24, 2008 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment

We like to think that we are the superheros. All American propaganda has taught us that. That is why we won’t deal with serious problems: the idiotic Iraqi War, Bush’s destruction of democracy and global warming—to name a few.

America is fraught with the Superhero mentality. We believe that no situation is so desperate that something or someone can’t come to our rescue. This summer, it is Ironman and Indiana Jones.

In Ironman, movie-goers spontaneously cheer when Ironman obliterates two Islamic brown men who had killed and threatened scores of innocents, and actually had the temerity to challenge the American Ironman.

Indiana Jones, played by the sexagenarian Harrison Ford, an academic and a warrior, almost single-handedly battles evil, much more successfully than America’s own battle against evil. The latter is known, but not often mentioned.

That is why we sit back and expect someone (larger than life) or something (namely, science) to rescue us from probably the most globally serious danger that the earth has faced since people appeared – global warming.

And apparently we feel so certain about this rescue that we don’t even dog our dense, agenda-bound leaders about doing almost nothing about this danger, including the recently-released McCain plan which subsidies businesses while doing little to reduce greenhouse gases.

Report this

By mpkirby, May 24, 2008 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

I suspect this file simply reflects the frustration at our country’s inability to do much of anything. 

We are weak diplomatically, and we are weak militarily.

Not from the traditional sense, but from a results-oriented perspective.

In my opinion, most of this comes from the incompetence of the Bush administration, and the lack of effective leadership.

We look,culturally, for solutions that cut right to the heart of the problem.  Military solutions by singular individuals fits that bill.

Large complex diplomatic and military campaigns are tiring.

Mike

Report this

By Chris, May 24, 2008 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Iron Man is a fictional character. I am a fan of this website but take the movie for what it is—-a fictional tale. By the way, I’m not a fan of the Bush administration or the previous Clinton administration. Generally speaking, I don’t like politicians.

I’m not doubting this movie might be used to make Americans think the U.S. military industrial complex can do no wrong but it is just a movie. Lighten up.

P.S. I don’t mean to really terrify anyone but I also happen to read the Iron Man monthly comic written by Charlie and Daniel Knauf so that must mean I am truly beyond all hope.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook