MGS4 Article in NYTimes

[Renwood]

You can use real world terminology without actually tackling the issue in a meaningful way though, lol.

There are rare glimmers of honest insight, like Drebin's comments on the role of the U.N., post-MGS4. A point was made there. A clear point. The rest is far too vague to be useful.

"War economy" and "proxy wars" are thrown around by nearly every character, but where the latter are never properly defined, even with the context of the story (the motivation for countries to hire PMCs in an age where there is no motivation for wars, since they are meaningless, still escapes me), and the former is a strange, strange idea. There is no war economy. There's just economy.

[TheGame]

Hmm, seems we're not on the same page. I'm more talking the MGS series in general, and you seem to be on the main point of MGS4. MGS4 is set to take place in the future, so the happenings in that game are not meant to be in line with real world events because we're not living in that time yet.

It just paints a future that a lot of alarmists may see as real... but not something that nesicarily could be linked with a real event and time. The funny thing about the whole War economy point is... have you ever looked at the numbers of how much the US spends on each war?

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere is throwing a party when a war starts because they're about to get paid. A point was made, that the people who gain money and power from supporting/supplying wars are the "enemy", in MGS4 ts just at a time where they're making any excuse to fight so people feed into giving them more money and power.

I would give specific examples, but don't want to toss spoilers into this mix.

That's the point I walked away with anyway.