This movie will open ANYONES eyes if you have never seen it. If you have nothing better to do why not take the time and watch an INCREDIBLE film that answers all the questions you have been asking about war. This is an eye opener ever for the "Pro Bushers".

Laf.
A general theme throughout movie was the miltary/industrial complex- Eisenhower's 1961 leaving office speech. The story of the movie was that miltary/industrial complex was ever growing. The facts are it's shrinking. In 1959 defense spending was 10% of GDP and at time speech [1961] it was 9.4 % and continued to fall until 1979 to 4.6 in 1980 it became to increase and peaked at 1986 to 6.2, then fell again reaching 3% in 1999, then rising at 2002 to 3.4%:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

The dominate factor in defense spending is the size of the Miltary- the size of end strength, which has skrunk over the years to 1.4 million troops- the high technology is seemingly significant in terms of dollars but this cost is borne in order to increase the effectiveness of miltary force and reduce US miltary troop loses. The seemingly high cost of weapon systems in comparison to number miltary personel is rather insignificant. For instance if you increase the end strength to say 2 million, you would have a significant increase to defense spending. Buying a new weapon system such as the F-22, even though seems very expensive is not adding much to defense budget- it spread over years, it replaces older aircraft, and it's increased capability can require less air craft to perform the same function- therefore it can save some money in this respect. Another high cost is keeping troops well equipped and with adequate training- body armor and things like armored HumVees can significantly increase cost because the large numbers of these items needed.

But the movie wasn't completely whacked like say something Micheal Moore would do. But definitely slants it's presentation in favor of the need to have a smaller miltary and a more isolationist position- I can agree with this in general terms, but I don't agree with the lying and misinformation used to push this agenda. For instance I think the obvious solution to reducing our role as global policeman lies in getting more democracies involved in sharing this responsibility.
There were numerous flat out lies particularly regarding our relationship with the Saddam regime- the idea that Saddam was our puppet state is simply a foolish assertion- a veering towards a Micheal Moore "documentary".

But as far grading it as a lefty propanganda piece, it's almost vaguely believeable; but as far as being informational it added nothing of interest.