While rather interesting at times, the only people this movie will convince are Americans themselves.
The movie went to great lengths trying to explain that American interventionism was humanitarian based and not based on greed or colonialism. They used the example of Iraq selling more contracts to non US based firms, in fact firms that were not directly involved in the US invasion (putting aside how short sighted this argument is and how it doesn't understand world markets, all of which I will bore the people reading this to explain why that argument is faulty) can be easily rebutted: Africa. The USA keeps involving herself in the middle east but the humanitarian disasters are all in Africa and based around the Congo civil war which over 5 million people died. Why intervene in the Balkans for some 250,000 people when the biggest humanitarian nightmare is the Congo? The Rwanda genocide (a spin off of this larger civil war) claimed 800,000 lives. Srebrenica claimed 8,000 (and largely fighting age men). That's a factor of 100 in magnitude difference.
Lastly, the movie made her own achilles heel without realizing it: Taiwan. Just like the first world war was started over Serbia due to bigger powers having competing interests, so can Taiwan. With US insistence on protecting it at all costs, the world risks a thermo- nuclear war. With no such assurance, the world risks a very minor, very local conflict.
In the end, the reason the US keeps up the gigantic spending is because people don't want to be fired. Think about it. The military is now the largest employer and an effective lobbyier. Despite bases in Europe serving no purpose (whose going to invade Germany again?) we maintain them because the people paying our congressmen don't want to see their budgets cut.
The movie went to great lengths trying to explain that American interventionism was humanitarian based and not based on greed or colonialism. They used the example of Iraq selling more contracts to non US based firms, in fact firms that were not directly involved in the US invasion (putting aside how short sighted this argument is and how it doesn't understand world markets, all of which I will bore the people reading this to explain why that argument is faulty) can be easily rebutted: Africa. The USA keeps involving herself in the middle east but the humanitarian disasters are all in Africa and based around the Congo civil war which over 5 million people died. Why intervene in the Balkans for some 250,000 people when the biggest humanitarian nightmare is the Congo? The Rwanda genocide (a spin off of this larger civil war) claimed 800,000 lives. Srebrenica claimed 8,000 (and largely fighting age men). That's a factor of 100 in magnitude difference.
Lastly, the movie made her own achilles heel without realizing it: Taiwan. Just like the first world war was started over Serbia due to bigger powers having competing interests, so can Taiwan. With US insistence on protecting it at all costs, the world risks a thermo- nuclear war. With no such assurance, the world risks a very minor, very local conflict.
In the end, the reason the US keeps up the gigantic spending is because people don't want to be fired. Think about it. The military is now the largest employer and an effective lobbyier. Despite bases in Europe serving no purpose (whose going to invade Germany again?) we maintain them because the people paying our congressmen don't want to see their budgets cut.