http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/ sprj.irq.bush.media/index.html
Bush's diabolical handlers have had this story inserted into the morning dispatches. Obviously, this story and the ones cited are total fabrications engineered to further the illusion of a free press that represents a broad range of interests and attitudes!
ID:190045
 Mar 28 2003, 6:12 am
|
|
yes, its all very funny isn't it. Our country has fallen into the grips of "hell"..and than we look at Germany, good 'ol peaceful Germany...
But serriously, you speak as if their is a lacking to our freedom of speach. In times of war propaganda is expected, its usually the only a leader can keep the people on his side (before they feel that the other nation is being oppressed <wonders what would have happened if America thought Naxi Germany was being Oppressed in WWII>). My 2 cents, not thouroughly thought out, but freely expressed | |
I don't think they're a hindrance to the machine... I don't think there is a machine. If there was, the stories coming out would all make Bush and his strategy look really good. As this story shows, they don't.
No, Bush didn't expect the Iraqis to fight fair... that doesn't mean he waives the right to call them on it. | |
I do not speak as if there is no freedom of speech. I speak exactly as if there was plenty of freedom of speech. I'm sarcastically pointing out the flaws in Dagolar's "propaganda machine" theory. The government puts out its press releases, but the press decides what to run and how to run it.
| |
Hedgemistress wrote:
No, Bush didn't expect the Iraqis to fight fair... that doesn't mean he waives the right to call them on it. Outside of mistreatment of prisoners of war and of Iraqi citizens on the part of the Iraqi military, which is reprehensible, I'm flummoxed by those who say that Iraqi hit-and-run tactics are somehow immoral, and I dislike press that takes that default assumption. If you are the inferior force, then hit-and-run annoyance tactics to wear down the enemy, combined with massing your best forces in one hard-to-take place all makes perfect sense. But probably what I'm mentioning here is the smaller part of it...I imagine the real charge of immorality is about using civilian human shields and executing prisoners. (I'm proud to see that we, immediately after a battle, round up all the wounded Iraqis we can and treat them...sometimes even while under fire by other Iraqis.) | |
But probably what I'm mentioning here is the smaller part of it...I imagine the real charge of immorality is about using civilian human shields and executing prisoners. Not to mention dressing up in U.S. uniforms. I think the objections generally stem from violations of the Geneva Conventions -- my understanding is that the U.S. is not actually a signatory, but its policy is to attempt to comply anyway. | |
No, Bush didn't expect the Iraqis to fight fair... that doesn't mean he waives the right to call them on it. On that I agree. The U.S. military has said that they're having problems with the guerilla tactics, but that's logistical/tactical problems, not "How dare they refuse to line up and let us shoot them?" problems. Of course, people like to seize on statements. If someone says, "It's the hit-and-run tactics that give us the most problems," then the press hears, "The hit-and-run tactics give us problems," and the people who hear the press hear, "The hit-and-run tactics give the military big problems," and the people they repeat it to hear, "We can't cope with the hit-and-run tactics." I also think the assumption that any out-of-uniform Iraqi who shoots at our troops is obviously a regular army member who has shed his uniform is also unfair... you have to assume that Iraqi opinion, like American, remains divided. People (army or otherwise) who pretend to surrender and then open fire, though... if those reports are true, I'd be surprised if you don't characterize that as shady. In "civilized" warfare, surrender should always be an option... like anything else that relies on an honor system, though, it doesn't take much to ruin it for everyone. | |
What to run and how to run it. What to run and how to run it.
Let me get this straight, Hedgemistress. Are you telling me that you think that there is no propaganda at work here? There is no propaganda machine in the workings about informing the public? There is no bias on the news networks? All information is freely and openly disclosed to the public without any swaying body to just give even the slightest "impression" that THIS way is right, or THIS way is wrong? -Dagolar | |
Just because he criticizes how the Iraqi soldiers fight does not mean that he was ignorant about it, it just means he doesn't see it as fair, but he definately knew they would fight that way. Now I see that you, and what seems to be most other non-Americans(Even some U.S. citizens) are doing, you all just look at Bush's mistakes so you can make fun of him, and act like their is a reason to actually hate the U.S.. I guess you feel it's ok that the Iraqi government uses civilians as shields in combat, gases thousands of it's own people, and uses chemical weapons which can spread across the countries and poison them, but Bush is the bad man and should not have any buisness with Saddam, right?
I am also sick of the people who protest against the war because of casualties, when the casualties that are being generated right now are to prevent even more casualties which could continue in the future if Saddam is not stopped.(Speaking about him testing bio weaponry and chemical weaponry on his own people.) I guess most of the world is to selfish and only cares for themselves, and would rather let small and weak countries perish under vicious dictators. I don't think it really matters for the reason Bush engaged in the war, the truth is I am rather glad that we are eliminating a threat to the world, and saving thousands of people, it seems like the most honorable thing a country has done in a while... yet we still get shunned by other countries for doing it. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Kusanagi said: I guess you feel it's ok that the Iraqi government uses civilians as shield in combat, gasses thousands of it's own people, and use chemical weapons which can spread across the countries and poison other countries, but it isn't ok for Bush to say something about the war without you trying to find pointless errors.
That makes me sick. You GUESS we feel that it's okay because we don't agree with the U.S. war on Iraq. This is not a coin flip, okay? It is extremely presumptuous to think that people who oppose war on Iraq support everything that Saddam Hussein's regime has done. Don't insult us like that. I hate Saddam Hussein. I hate his regime. I also think the SOLUTION that has been undertaken to remove this atrocity is an atrocity in itself. -Dagolar | |
[EDIT]I would like to hear a few people who oppose the way America is handling the situation with a different way to handle it, just to give me a clearer view on why you insist what we are doing is wrong.
It's the only thing I can come to, since most of the foreigners wish death upon the States it seems, but I guess you would rather have us magically put Clinton in office and pay Saddam another large sum of money so he can buy more weapons, which will keep us at peace for another 10 or so years at the most.... The thing is, after all I have seen, calling the way we are handling this an atrocity makes no since when you compare this to the atrocities Hussein has done.... I still have yet to see a VALID and PROVEN reason for why what America is doing is horrible. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
and uses chemical weapons which can spread across the countries and poison them I would like to point out something here. Of course Iraq most likely has chemical weapons, but if we've been fighting them for atleast a week, you'd think that because of their cruelty they would've used atleast one chemical weapon? The U.S. has used chemical weapons before also, and no doubt does other countries and the U.S. has nuclear weapons/Weapons of mass destruction, but of course they don't use it. Atleast wait until they use the chemicals until you start saying such thing, it'd be like reporting your neighbor to the police for having a gun which he could use to kill someone. I guess most of the world is to selfish and only cares for themselves, and would rather let small and weak countries perish under vicious dictators. I don't think it really matters for the reason Bush engaged in the war, the truth is I am rather glad that we are eliminating a threat to the world, and saving thousands of people, it seems like the most honorable thing a country has done in a while... yet we still get shunned by other countries for doing it. Let's look at a really good reason why we are shunned by other countries. President Bush, from what I've seen in the newspaper, has said he doesn't care what the U.N. says, or something similar to that. I beleive we've actually ignored the U.N. and wen't to Iraq anyways, of course please correct me if I'm wrong. I do beleive Saddam should be removed, but I don't think by war, atleast not now and if the U.N. hasn't agreed. I also don't think Saddam is a threat to the world. Sure he may have chemical weapons, but he doesn't have enough people to carry out war with a major country. | |
Of course there's bias! Everyone and everything is biased... and THAT is what makes it a free press. If we were to ensure that all outlets remain "objective," there'd have to be a special panel that determines what is the objective truth and what happens to people who aren't objective. A Ministry of Truth, if you will (can I possibly reference 1984 without erupting a flame war?).
Of course there's "propaganda"! Everyone puts out press releases, carefully crafted pieces of information (or misinformation) that makes sure everything that's presented either helps their case, or is presented in the least damaging light. When I say "everyone", I mean "everyone." The government. The schools. The churches. The used car lots. You. Me. The people down the street. Everyone wants to look good! My question is, in all this chaos, all this conflict of bias and propaganda, do you see anything resembling a "machine"? | |
Geo wrote:
and uses chemical weapons which can spread across the countries and poison them Saddam in the most likely case, does not want the U.S. to look good for attacking him, so far he has done a good job. I'v heard of this exscuse that we have used chemical weapons and have nuclear weapons, but we used chemical weapons before the treaty against them was created, and unlike us, Iraq was forced into a treaty with the U.N. so that they were ordered to remove all nuclear and chemical weapons, therefore making it valid to attack them for not removing them/stopping production(Especially because we gave them 10 years to get rid of the weaponry, and the factories!) I guess most of the world is to selfish and only cares for themselves, and would rather let small and weak countries perish under vicious dictators. I don't think it really matters for the reason Bush engaged in the war, the truth is I am rather glad that we are eliminating a threat to the world, and saving thousands of people, it seems like the most honorable thing a country has done in a while... yet we still get shunned by other countries for doing it. No, the way you say it makes it seem worse than it is, he never directly or even nearly directly said that he doesn't care. I believe the problem was, was that the UN was never directly addressing the issue, and because of that, he felt that they werent going to answer it with the one he wanted. Bush knew that Iraq was funding even more attacks upon us and did not want to face those anymore, and not to mention his own personal reasons(The assassination attempt on his father while the old Bush was president.). What I wonder is, you want him removed, but not by war? Do you expect us to walk up to Saddam's headquarters, and just take him out, then poof! His reign is over and Iraq has become a free country! Uhh, no... that would be nice but in the real world it does not happen. If we tried removing him out of office, a war would start anyways, meaning it would be inevitable any way you try to get rid of him. You also forget that Saddam might not have a big enough army to carry out a war, but he does have weapons that can do enough permanent damage to land masses, you also forget that Saddam is not the most sane person on the planet, and could really care less if his army dies... if he attacked someone in any case, he would use parts of his arsenal that would even the battleground. As seen in combat, he is not one to obey treaties and set laws, and everybody has known this, including the UN, but nobody has done crap about it. Well something must be done, and it's being done now. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
The idea of a propaganda MACHINE is a metaphor. It's more like an institution; machine is just the informal name now used. Why is it called a machine? Because it's orchestrated by a certain group of people to influence.
I completely agree that there is bias everywhere. That makes perfect sense to me, and I'm glad that you understand that. What I'm trying to point to is propaganda for a purpose, mainly for support. Whether people properly understand the situation or not is not an issue. The propaganda machine wants people to behave a certain way. It has the power, the money, the technology, and the will as a body of people high-up on the economic food chain to make that occur. The one reason, in my opinion, and I am not trying to offend nobody in the U.S. (I apologize and can understand if this sounds insulting), that there is so much international opposition to the war on Iraq, is that people living outside the United States are not easily convinced of the U.S. argument, which is portrayed on the news, the internet, everywhere. Here, especially, people are simply not convinced that there is any real direct intention by the U.S. to free the people of Iraq, and that suspicion has a lot of merit. People outside the U.S. are simply not convinced. People IN the U.S. are not convinced. But there is a lot of pressure from the administration to gain support. That pressure is a direct contributor to the propaganda machine. Whether people are properly informed about Iraq or not is not a concern. They want support, plain and simple. The propaganda machine will make every attempt at convincing people that the position it supports is correct (whether it actually is or not). -Dagolar | |
Can you please show me proof that the U.S. is trying to gain support from it's citizens through mass propaganda? I have watched various foreign news reports, and they seem the same as ours... so your telling me the U.S. not only secretly controls our media stations, but other country's as well? Sounds sort of like a conspiracy!
<<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
I certainly havn't heard of any others, and I have asked for them... please tell me another viable option. Should we ask Saddam to free all his people and give up his power, maybe add a pretty please with sugar on top?
<<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Guess again, Kusanagi.
You want some reasons why the international community is against this? These are some (and I bet most) of the reasons as to why the international community sees this war as an atrocity: -Weapons inspectors were still at work when the war began. -The U.N. held a position that inspections would continue. -Something around 80+% of the citizens in virtually every country outside of the U.S. opposed this war. -The argument coming from the U.S. for war was speculative and unconvincing (and still is). -The U.S. played down EACH AND EVERY attempt by the United Nations to avoid war. "They are deceiving us again, the weapons inspectors are getting nowhere", etc. -The so-called link between Saddam and Osama that U.S put forth to the international community. Oh. There's a link alright. Osama thinks Saddam is a moronic infidel who should die with all the other infidels in Iraq. -The constant downplay that oil was a factor for war. -The repeated attempt by U.S. media to show people what a violent and evil dictator Saddam Hussein is. Fine, he's violent and evil and mean. So we should wage war on the country? -Why, may I ask, did George Bush himself never negotiate with president Hussein? This was something that, here anyway, was a question raised many times. -Iraq: suspected weapons of mass destruction. North Korea: re-initiated nuclear missle testing. I could find more if I asked around, probably. But those are reasons that stick out in my mind and the minds of my friends. That's what we think, that's what we see. -Dagolar | |
But anyway, do you think that these kinds of headlines are a hindrance to the machine? I personally think it is when the machine is identified in its workings (like this) that it begins to lose its momentum.
On a personal note, I think it's amusing that Bush crticizes how the Iraqis defend their country. If the administration thought that the Iraqis were going to play by Coalition rules, that's a pretty obvious sign of ignorance and naivete that is, in many circumstances, already visible in their encounters on the battlefield.
-Dagolar