Is America use the latest Israel war to divert attention?

Letherneck: What are you talking about man? I'm delighted at this news. Can't you hear me? "Whoooppeeee, they got democracy now!" Let's have a high five for them. What about those Afghans? I mean, they got it too!

Afghanistan's hidden war

The scale of the fighting in southern Afghanistan has dramatically increased over the past few months.

..

Local politicians, police chiefs and judges are being assassinated, and schools are being closed due to intimidation or being burned to the ground.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5220514.stm
You're my hero :love:
 
Rambuchan said:
Please try watching a different "news" channel, for just half an hour. Or reading some Reuters or BBC daily web reports on Iraq.

If you are getting the "whoopeee, they got democracy" message over the 40-100 people killed daily in Iraq + ruined infrastructure still + kidnappings rife + more suicide bombers being recruited everyday + assassinations of ministers + more Arabs hating America for invading their land etc etc ......... then try and watch one that doesn't emphasise the "whoopeee, they got democracy" message over everything else. Might make a refreshing change. :)

The line that the Sunnis and Shias have been killing each other for over a thousand years, that's just the most transparent cover over the shockign mess that has been created. You really expect us to swallow that?

Why was "news" in quotes? If it doesn't come from the anti-American BBC its not news? 40 - 100 people killed by who? Sunnies? Shia? Iranian backed "freedom fighters"? Ruined infrastructer by who? Last I checked the water oil and electrical were being sabotaged by "freedom fighters". More Arabs hating America you say? What about the ones saying thank you? I quess the only news worth watching is the one that says Iraq is a failuer and America screwed it all up. As for sunnies killing shia do you deny they have been killing each other for a very long time? Did the sunni gov. not kill untold thousands of shia and dump them in mass graves? You make it sound as if no problems exsisted before we went in. Its not like all Iraqis had electricity, or rights, freedoms, and a whole host of other good things.
 
skadistic said:
Why was "news" in quotes?
Err, because Fox has more in common with Tom & Jerry than news? Have you realised that it doesn't even try to be proper journalism?
skadistic said:
If it doesn't come from the anti-American BBC its not news?
I notice this line being used a lot. Anti-american. If you've got a problem with the source, think it's biased, well then open up any other news source and find the same.
skadistic said:
40 - 100 people killed by who? Sunnies? Shia? Iranian backed "freedom fighters"? Ruined infrastructer by who? Last I checked the water oil and electrical were being sabotaged by "freedom fighters".
It doesn't matter by whom. It matters that the USA / UK invasion created the mess that allowed this to happen.
skadistic said:
More Arabs hating America you say? What about the ones saying thank you?
Didn't you see the news I posted? The Iraqi PM is NOT saying thank you. He's saying his country is a complete mess. Good Iraqi to ask for an assessment I reckon.
skadistic said:
I quess the only news worth watching is the one that says Iraq is a failuer and America screwed it all up.
It's what all but a choice few are saying.
skadistic said:
As for sunnies killing shia do you deny they have been killing each other for a very long time? Did the sunni gov. not kill untold thousands of shia and dump them in mass graves? You make it sound as if no problems exsisted before we went in. Its not like all Iraqis had electricity, or rights, freedoms, and a whole host of other good things.
Again, read the news. See how bad it's got.
 
Rambuchan said:
Letherneck: What are you talking about man? I'm delighted at this news. Can't you hear me? "Whoooppeeee, they got democracy now!" Let's have a high five for them. What about those Afghans? I mean, they got it too!

My bad sounded a bit sarcastic ... on first read.

Here is the deal as my backward ass sees it, when the US (colonies if you will) broke with jolly old England it took a LONG time to become a "real" nation. For Pete sake we had a Civil War 84 years after the fact, it isn't going to happen over night. Now factor in the boatload of cultural differences and never really having what we call an Democracy in that part of the world you;ve got your work cut out for you. We live in this RIGHT $%#@in' NOW world and you just can't apply that to changing a government and cultural shift. There is going to be bad news, people as a rule don't like change. You start dumping fast change and you get resistance.
Anyway you're smart enough to fill in all the various blanks of trying to build a democracy in the middle east. It will take time, more time than I think a lot of people are ready to invest.

I haven't had time to read the link yet, but it's tabbed up and I will. You do know the BBC has been heavily anti-American lately so I'll read it with gloves on.


You're my hero :love:

That's what I'm here for.
 
Leatherneck said:
Here is the deal as my backward ass sees it, when the US (colonies if you will) broke with jolly old England it took a LONG time to become a "real" nation. For Pete sake we had a Civil War 84 years after the fact, it isn't going to happen over night. Now factor in the boatload of cultural differences and never really having what we call an Democracy in that part of the world you;ve got your work cut out for you. We live in this RIGHT $%#@in' NOW world and you just can't apply that to changing a government and cultural shift. There is going to be bad news, people as a rule don't like change. You start dumping fast change and you get resistance.
Anyway you're smart enough to fill in all the various blanks of trying to build a democracy in the middle east. It will take time, more time than I think a lot of people are ready to invest.
This post assumes that "change" was inevitable. That you "had to bring democracy". Well, you didn't "have to do" any of these things.

But you did. Now look at that link and any other news please (like Reuters for example). Think of it as your country, your neighbourhood. Then tell me if you think it is worth it.
 
That you "had to bring democracy". Well, you didn't "have to do" any of these things

I'd say your glossing over a good portion of your very own nations history in the region. No need to nit pick the fine points and go off topic but I am sure we both understand all of these conflicts and discontent did not form overnight.

Think of it as your country. Then tell me if you think it is worth it.

And I challange you with the same question.
 
Rambuchan said:
This post assumes that "change" was inevitable. That you "had to bring democracy". Well, you didn't "have to do" any of these things.

But you did. Now look at that link and any other news please (like Reuters for example). Think of it as your country, your neighbourhood. Then tell me if you think it is worth it.
I guess we also didn't "have to" save your country during WWII, but guess what, we did it anyway.

America is interventionalist, face it. Be glad that America isn't evil in nature (sure you'd love to say it, but you don't really ~mean~ it, or at least, comprehend it). Imagine if North Korea or Iran was in charge of the world.
 
Rambuchan said:
This post assumes that "change" was inevitable. That you "had to bring democracy". Well, you didn't "have to do" any of these things.

But you did. Now look at that link and any other news please (like Reuters for example). Think of it as your country, your neighbourhood. Then tell me if you think it is worth it.


I read the link, is it worth it, perhaps. Iron fist rule of the Taliban or the chance to be free? I'm not going to stoop to "Well the fargin bastidges bomb us with planes! So we had to go open a can of whoop-azz."
Ultimantly it is the Afgans choice, if the choose change then you know, I know, they know it will not be easy and it will have a price.
I didn't mean to imply it was inevitable and we (US) had to take it to them, but I don't see where the world will be a worse place for it, perhaps that's my arrogance or ignorance. Pick one.

NOTE: The BBC story was fair.
 
Well, global warming sure seems to have taken a back seat, eh? The hottest summer that the civilized north has ever suffered, and we're cranking our A/Cs without thinking that (in inverse analogies - "we're burning our cabin 'cause it's so cold outside")
 
Bronx Warlord said:
I'd say your glossing over a good portion of your very own nations history in the region. No need to nit pick the fine points and go off topic but I am sure we both understand all of these conflicts and discontent did not form overnight.
My dear fellow, I am fully aware of Britain's history in the region and the world. I'm also fully aware that the USA has inherited that "white man's burden" myth, alongside the role of chief aggressor in the region too (they tend to go hand in hand).

The USA is making the same mistakes as Britain did. Commiting many of the same crimes in doing so. And I should point out that I oppose, in no uncertain terms, imperialist action by anyone. I oppose the old British brand of Imperialism and I oppose the American brand of it now. Because it all ends up in the tragedy that the news links above are showing us to be true.

This death, ruination and suffering, such as we are seeing in Iraq and such as we saw under Britain's "enlightened empire", always comes hand in hand with the Imperialist course of intervention.

So, you call it "bringing democracy" to these nations. The British called it "bringing civilisation". Funny how both "democracy" and "civilisation" need to be brought by force, don't you think?

Funny how, when you don't call it anything, but just look at the facts, it all ends up in much the same way > ruined lives, ruined countries, death and destruction, regional instability, hatred of the Imperialist expressed in desperate resistance.
Bronx Warlord said:
And I challange you with the same question.
Hope this and all my other posts in this thread have done that for you.
 
garric said:
I guess we also didn't "have to" save your country during WWII, but guess what, we did it anyway.

You're of Russian decent, if I recall.

You get props for being able to make this comment ... twice. "Both my countries solved the Nazi problem!"

Just thought it was funny.
 
The US is using Israel to divert attention from Iran,and North Korea and their inabality to deal with their nuclear proliferation and programs. By using I mean prolonging the conflict by not pressing for a ceasefire when they are the only couintry that can impose one. I do believe that the US can gain from attention focused on the Israel deal rather than other big issues and problems facing the US like Irans continued proliferation and disregard for the UN. And North Korea shooting off missiles and getting away scot free. Frankly one should be more worried about that than Israel moving into Southern Lebanon.
 
garric said:
I guess we also didn't "have to" save your country during WWII, but guess what, we did it anyway.
Actually, if you look into the detail of how Americans got into that war (and the previous), you'll soon find that it was British propaganda that persuaded the war-shy, pacifist Americans to join:
During the first World War, the relations changed. And they changed more dramatically during the second World War. After the second World War the U.S. more or less took over the world. But after first World War there was already a change and the U.S. shifted from being a debtor to a creditor nation. It wasn’t huge, like Britain, but it became a substantial actor in the world for the first time. That was one change, but there were other changes.

The first World War was the first time there was highly organized state propaganda. The British had a Ministry of Information, and they really needed it because they had to get the U.S. into the war or else they were in bad trouble. The Ministry of Information was mainly geared to sending propaganda, including huge fabrications about "Hun" atrocities, and so on. They were targeting American intellectuals on the reasonable assumption that these are the people who are most gullible and most likely to believe propaganda. They are also the ones that disseminate it through their own system. So it was mostly geared to American intellectuals and it worked very well. The British Ministry of Information documents (a lot have been released) show their goal was, as they put it, to control the thought of the entire world, a minor goal, but mainly the U.S. They didn’t care much what people thought in India. This Ministry of Information was extremely successful in deluding hot shot American intellectuals into accepting British propaganda fabrications. They were very proud of that. Properly so, it saved their lives. They would have lost the first World War otherwise.

In the U.S., there was a counterpart. Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform. The U.S. was a very pacifist country. It has always been. People don’t want to go fight foreign wars. The country was very much opposed to the first World War and Wilson was, in fact, elected on an anti-war position. "Peace without victory" was the slogan. But he was intending to go to war. So the question was, how do you get the pacifist population to become raving anti-German lunatics so they want to go kill all the Germans? That requires propaganda. So they set up the first and really only major state propaganda agency in U.S. history. The Committee on Public Information it was called (nice Orwellian title), called also the Creel Commission. The guy who ran it was named Creel. The task of this commission was to propagandize the population into a jingoist hysteria. It worked incredibly well. Within a few months there was a raving war hysteria and the U.S. was able to go to war.

Source.
garric said:
America is interventionalist, face it. Be glad that America isn't evil in nature (sure you'd love to say it, but you don't really ~mean~ it, or at least, comprehend it). Imagine if North Korea or Iran was in charge of the world.
I am facing it. And I don't like what I see. I mean it and I understand it. Because I've seen what British Imperialism has done. Please see my previous post for more on that and see that I think such government is abhorrent in and of itself.
 
To answer the first post: no, the US isn't using the Israeli conflict to divert attention away from Iraq. The news agencies are reporting less in Iraq now due to the new fighting in Lebanon. It's a normal news agency reaction.

Iraq is a worse mess now. Hundreds of people are dying everyday. It was covered here: Link
 
Actually, if you look into the detail of how Americans got into that war (and the previous), you'll soon find that it was British propaganda that persuaded the war-shy, pacifist Americans to join:

And Peral Harbor had absolotley nothing to do with it of course....

British propganda was relatively minor in influencening America to go to war.

In WWI it did play a larger role, that was when the concept of Germans as barbaring Huns was widely propgated . However the provaction of unrestricted submarine warfare, death of US citizens, and the Zimmermen telegram all had a larger impact than British propganda.
 
garric said:
I guess we also didn't "have to" save your country during WWII, but guess what, we did it anyway.

Why when criticised (mainly by either French or English) so Americans always come out with this???

I realise this is OT but:......There is no doubt that the manpower and arms of the USA helped win the war for the allies but in truth we were forced to fight for 2-years against a superior militaristic country while our so-called "special ally" sat back and refused to help. Also FYI the Battle of Britain (the war in the skies above the UK) saved the UK in WWII for the RAF beat the Lufftwatte and acheived air supremacy preventing any German invasion offensive of our island.
 
Winner said:
No, only Iran is using it to divert attention from its nuclear programme.

Considering Western pundits are screaming loudly for an attack on Iran - even if your statement was true; could you blame them for doing this?

Everyone is screaming for a defensive war because the other side is screaming for a defensive war.
 
silver 2039 said:
And Peral Harbor had absolotley nothing to do with it of course....

British propganda was relatively minor in influencening America to go to war.

In WWI it did play a larger role, that was when the concept of Germans as barbaring Huns was widely propgated . However the provaction of unrestricted submarine warfare, death of US citizens, and the Zimmermen telegram all had a larger impact than British propganda.
I think you've made some very good points here silver.

My main concern in this thread is about the views produced by propaganda. That's what my posts above are on about really. So I was trying to give an historical context to the counter views above and hence was more focused on WW1. Everything you say is quite valid. I don't wish to reduce it to propaganda alone. But we can see the results of it quite starkly here.

Leatherneck: I'm not going to pick either of your options. I'll just say thank you for taking the time to read it. I'm glad you found it to be fair and hope you will look to such fair reporting in future. :)
 
Rambuchan said:
Actually, if you look into the detail of how Americans got into that war (and the previous), you'll soon find that it was British propaganda that persuaded the war-shy, pacifist Americans to join:
The Americans were wary of getting into -any- war, and even if your assertion of British propaganda is true, it is a non-issue. You still were saved by the Americans; had they not come to your aid you would have been destroyed by the Germans. Not to mention the fact that FDR had favored you, and was secretly selling arms and rations to your nation from almost the start of the war.

I am facing it. And I don't like what I see. I mean it and I understand it. Because I've seen what British Imperialism has done. Please see my previous post for more on that and see that I think such government is abhorrent in and of itself.

You must be pretty old to "see" what British Imperialism has done, however, America isn't imperalistic, so yet again this is a non issue. I'd actually like it a little bit, if we were imperialistic, I want my damned cheap oil - ya dig?

America is a benevolent nation, it sends aid to many countries of the world, and it is scared beyond all doubt at petty "massacres" of civilians in Iraq. If America was the country you're painting, they would execute whole towns to cripple morale of the insurgents and bring in the big guns and have the whole mess in Iraq finished within months, then they would pump all of the oil out of Iraq to fuel the war machine and then finish off the rest of the Middle East and turn it into a gas station.
 
Back
Top Bottom