Propoganda, War on Evil, etc etc

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Propaganda is not about how something is said ,it's about what's said and what not.
People make conclusions on the information they get and not on the interpretations of one media organization.But they can only make conclusions on the information they get ,and sometimes you can give the public the information it needs to make a certain conclusion.

The difference in foureign oppinion between the Us citizin's and european's is not on wich interpretation the media presents us.European media is much more eager to give the more negative information about the u.s in it's media and the us vica versa.In fact both our continent problems are almost used aganst eachother to get the attention away of or own more local problem's.


The fact is that both Europe and America don't have much trouble to exploit an other.Europe is economicly as protectionist as America and as much as possible on the back of thirld world country's.Coruption is rampant in Europe aswel as in America ,and lots of information is getting held back.
Europe itself likes to profilate itself as the "wise culured continent" in foureign politic's ,it's all but a charade to destract the attention of more pressing matter's.
The war against terror has made the american public almost 100% pro bush ,while the serious economic recession ,ecological problem's and such are pressed to the background.
In fact if it wasnt for terrorists Bush would probably be the most hated man in the U.S right now.

To be a good citizin you must spit on youre nations politics ,and on those around the world.Only by trusting nobody and being extreme pessimistic you can maybe find some truth out there.

 

[allhailIndia]

Hey it is always the victors who write history. If, God forbid, the Taliban had won, they would have seen it as an affirmation of their misdeeds and proceeded spread their rotten behaviour everywhere

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
The war against terror has made the american public almost 100% pro bush ,while the serious economic recession ,ecological problem's and such are pressed to the background.
In fact if it wasnt for terrorists Bush would probably be the most hated man in the U.S right now.

I don't know... his supporters have been laudering his stupidity for so long its kind of like second nature to them. Mention Bush & intelligence in the same sentence and they already begin to curl up while their brain access all the Clinton propoganda Rush Limbaugh has told them.
But 100% pro-Bush? Absolutely not. I know many, many people who didn't vote for Bush, and their support for him is still lukewarm at best. Democrats in congress killed his 'stimulus' package with virtually no backlash. He is still getting critisized frequently in editorials, by pundits, and by virtually every reasonable person I know. The 100% support for Bush is really more of a 100% support for killing terrorists. Bush has the legal & Constitutional authority to do so, and as a result a lot of people simply feel it has to be him to do it because nobody else can. As a result, he is getting greatly inflated popularity numbers as long as he says "Lets get them". That support has not shown to exist in domestic policy at all.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
To be a good citizin you must spit on youre nations politics ,and on those around the world.Only by trusting nobody and being extreme pessimistic you can maybe find some truth out there.

Its staggering how many good citizens we have. I try to defend politics and the system and am constantly lambasted with challenges. Its mind numbing.
My fear is too much pessimism results in people actually believing the system isn't working. When people believe something isn't working, they want it changed. I can't concieve how such a change could benefit America. When being extremely pessimistic, its important to remember and acknowledge the institutions that give you the ability to be critical, informed about those things you are critical of, and the right to voice those critical beliefs.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius
As a result, he is getting greatly inflated popularity numbers as long as he says "Lets get them". That support has not shown to exist in domestic policy at all.

Therein lies the problem: Bush's domestic agenda (tax cut, missile defense, faith based initiatives) is being pushed through with little dissent due to his huge popularity from the "war on terrorism."

I know this subject has been beaten to death but to go back to the 2000 election one more time, it would have been much more representative of the people of America if for example Sen. John McCain won. Since the country is split nearly 50-50 between liberal and conservative, wouldn't it make the most sense for a moderate to win instead of "borderline religious right" Bush or "relative to his peers fairly liberal" Gore.

Can someone please explain to me how an idiot like Bush beat a well-respected, moderate McCain in the '00 Republican primaries? I don't mean to bash Republican voters here, I am seriously wondering how he won and by how much?

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders

Only by trusting nobody and being extreme pessimistic you can maybe find some truth out there.

So I am not the only cynic here? How nice.

 

[allhailIndia]

An unfortunate truth of life

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Greadius
To be fair, its hard to find people (in America) who have a whole lot of complaints. I live on a College campus and even here there are many people who support the gist of it. Of course, many times the media DOES give a contrary story; and there are many times when the contrary story would come from a rambling towel-head calling us the great Satan. Its really hard to balance that.

To be fair, Falwell got critisized by the left and right. Behind the doors at the Christian Coalition (or whatever the one he ran) his comments had a lot to do with him stepping down as the chair. Additionally, a lot of young people who are disolusioned with Christianity cite him and his type as their reason. Falwell is about as mainstream as homosexuality.

Please keep the racist references out of this.

 

[knowltok2]

Can someone please explain to me how an idiot like Bush beat a well-respected, moderate McCain in the '00 Republican primaries? I don't mean to bash Republican voters here, I am seriously wondering how he won and by how much?

I figure it was the same way Gore beat Bradley. I can't say I followed every second of the primaries, but I do believe I would have prefered Bradley to Gore and McCain to Bush.

On some of the other stuff. Everyone needs to get over the propaganda that the news organizations spew out. They are not a public service committed to giving you what you need to know in an ever changing world. They are big business committed to getting higher ratings so that they can charge GM more to advertise the new model of truck or whatever. Coverage of some factory blowing up someplace in Europe is going to get flipped past by most American viewers. Maybe they shouldn't but they will, and that is what the media cares about.

As another example, consider how the media advertised the "no news story" regarding the war on terrorism. Did they come on during their commercial on daytime TV and say, "nothing going on, story at 6:00"? No. They advertised, "Latest developments in the war on terrorism at 6:00!"

People need to stop expecting that the media somehow cares what they are reporting about. I wish they did, and I wish they would drop a lot of the crap that is local and inform me about something that could affect my life, but they aren't going to any time soon.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
Therein lies the problem: Bush's domestic agenda (tax cut, missile defense, faith based initiatives) is being pushed through with little dissent due to his huge popularity from the "war on terrorism."

The first tax cut, faith based initiaves, AND missile defense were ALL pushed through before 9/11. Tax cut #2 failed. What part of Bush's domestic agenda has been pushed through SINCE 9/11?

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by knowltok2


I figure it was the same way Gore beat Bradley. I can't say I followed every second of the primaries, but I do believe I would have prefered Bradley to Gore and McCain to Bush.

On some of the other stuff. Everyone needs to get over the propaganda that the news organizations spew out. They are not a public service committed to giving you what you need to know in an ever changing world. They are big business committed to getting higher ratings so that they can charge GM more to advertise the new model of truck or whatever. Coverage of some factory blowing up someplace in Europe is going to get flipped past by most American viewers. Maybe they shouldn't but they will, and that is what the media cares about.

As another example, consider how the media advertised the "no news story" regarding the war on terrorism. Did they come on during their commercial on daytime TV and say, "nothing going on, story at 6:00"? No. They advertised, "Latest developments in the war on terrorism at 6:00!"

People need to stop expecting that the media somehow cares what they are reporting about. I wish they did, and I wish they would drop a lot of the crap that is local and inform me about something that could affect my life, but they aren't going to any time soon.

At least you know how things work. Still, I think it is sad that people are just accepting the media's putting ratings and profits over objectivity and diverse content. Something needs to be done about this.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius
The first tax cut, faith based initiaves, AND missile defense were ALL pushed through before 9/11. Tax cut #2 failed. What part of Bush's domestic agenda has been pushed through SINCE 9/11?

My mistake; it was getting late when I made that post. Still, the dissenting voices to these issues have been somehwhat muted since 9/11, because people are overlooking these things to support Bush's war on terrorism.

After 9/11 he has pushed through fast track trade authority, which failed under Clinton. As far as I know, faith based initiatives have not passed through Congress yet.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz


My mistake; it was getting late when I made that post. Still, the dissenting voices to these issues have been somehwhat muted since 9/11, because people are overlooking these things to support Bush's war on terrorism.

After 9/11 he has pushed through fast track trade authority, which failed under Clinton. As far as I know, faith based initiatives have not passed through Congress yet.

And let us pray that they won't.

Thing is, whenver anyone dares to challenge the dufus on anything, he lambasts them and practically accuses them of helping out terrorism. You see the adds the GOP was running against the Senator from Minnesota or Michigan..I forget...that blasted the guy and did everything but come right out and call him a terrorist? Sick.

Anything you do just about these days, from puffing a fatty to dissing the head moron, you're helping out the terrorist cause.

Give me a break.

And, BTW, it can't be 100% backing, because I still thing Bush is an idiot. And it'll drop to 40-45%, where it belongs and where it would be without 9/11, before too long, no matter how hard he tries to keep 'The War' going.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

As for Bush using the "war on terrorism" as decoy to cover the domestic problem's ,i guess he has learned that trick of his father Who used the first Gulf war for that purpose ,or Clinton who used the kosovo war partly to get reelected.
The fact is it's almost always interresting for a serving American president to start a war in some far flung country as it's very good for his popularity ,and that's not a very good thing i guess.
Terrorism provide's an perfect enemy for that purpose ,as it's scattered all over the world and it's a perfect exuse to wage a number of war's over a long timespan.In that sence the word terrorism just has replaced the word communistic to define who the general enemy is.
And it's already becoming a very dubious word ,as it's very hard to define terrorism under the context Bush is using it.He already made a statement some weeks ago (not a very smart one) that the next target's in the war against terrorism would be country's like Iran, Iraq & N-Korea. The threat's these country's impose one the U.S is obvious ,but they presented about the same threat under the Clinton administration as they do now ,they were rouge country's prior to 11 september ,and they are still rouge country's now despite the fact that Bush try's to label them as "terrorist country's".

Bush has enormisly increased the defense budget some time ago ,from 3% to 5% i think ,that's a lot of money that could be used to give the people some sort of social benifit's.I don't have the slightest idea how increasing the millitary budget can be positive for the U.S these day's ,as they already outnumber every country in the world greatly on conventional and non convential weaponry.
The U.S has already all the power it want's on conventional and non-conventional weaponry ,the only weapon's that can hurt are non-conventual one'': nuclear attack's ,terrorist attack's etc. .In no way increasing the defense budget will change anything to this ,current increase to the budget would probably go to conventional troop's ,and there are already a lot of those in America. (although part of the money would be to increase the wage's of the soldiers ,and i know some friends here that are not against such a thing (sorry Joe s.)
On the other hand this defense budget increase is really a blessing for America's war industry ,and there are some wealthy lobeyer's and conservative-supporter's there.Theyre relation i guess is a bit like we help you ,you help us ,something that is very coman in the american landscape.The conservative and democrat's party's both earn million's of donation's from the big company's in their own country's.Subsuquentialy a president will help those company's if he can with his power's ,and he can help a lot.Bush is depended on company's in the energy sector ,military sector,industrial sector ,genetical sector ,IT sector or the MEDIA sector to fund his election campaign.No wonder that company's like Time-warner/Aol use theyre media company's to spread positive information about the current president ,as it is tottaly in their interests.This way not all the media company's support Bush ,but atleast the big one's do ,those with the million of viewer's some more criticising press doesnt have.
An example of this was the tax cut bush gotten through in the begining of his term.The tax cut was most profitable for the rich inhabitant's of America and the big company's.No wonder media channel's like CNN had only positive comment's on bush decission ,as it was tottaly benifial for the company itself and the company bosses.

That is something i really hate the day of today in politics all over the world ,the "friend's politic's" i consider that as a form of coruption to.That "you help me i help you" politic's are most of the times only usefull for those engaged in it ,and a lot of time's it's not good for the interests of the general public.

There's a big difference between the European country's and the U.S in how much trust we have in our goverment.While most American's have trust in most of the political elite of their country,in europe most people have mis-trust in their own gouverment and are very weary toward's corruption and such.
I alway's have advocated being extremely pessimistic about youre country ,and always used a criticising approach to every country in the world ,even now.I'm not criticising america so much because i think my continent is much better ,because it isn't really.I only criticise America because i critizize every nation .As i said once before criticizing youre nation is a duty of the habitants of a democracy.

All this information i got from european media magazine's ,it can be that they conflict with the information American's got from there media.So if any american sees something in my post he perceive's as BS feel free to comment.I know myself i can't rely on the information spread out by whatever informational body's of this world ,so i actually never could really form an definate oppinion ,and therefore you have discussion's.

edit: so much typo's ,and i probably left some out.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
As for Bush using the "war on terrorism" as decoy to cover the domestic problem's ,i guess he has learned that trick of his father Who used the first Gulf war for that purpose ,or Clinton who used the kosovo war partly to get reelected....

...All this information i got from european media magazine's ,it can be that they conflict with the information American's got from there media.So if any american sees something in my post he perceive's as BS feel free to comment.

Well, will a Canadian do? I could have said a lot about these direct quotes of yours from Socialist Worker or wherever, but let's start with what's there:

First, his father did not "use" the Gulf War as a decoy to cover domestic problems. The events that made that war possible were started by someone else on their own timetable. The recession that Bush was supposedly decoying people away from was not a clear problem until well after Desert Shield had started, and to be honest, Desert Storm was inevitable once the buildup had begun.

Second, Clinton did not and could not have run for re-election, so how could he have used the Kosovo war to help do so? If anything, Clinton could have used Bosnia as a (just) opportunity to boost his poll ratings, but he dithered - despite the fact that he had been elected on a platform that endorsed a much more aggressive approach. Likewise, China. He'd run claiming it was time to stop "coddling dictators." Once in office, did he create a poll-boosting conflict with China? Nope. Now, with that cruise missle strike in the Sudan and Monica Lewinsky, on the other hand...

Frankly, I'm getting tired of all of these people assuming the world is a big conspiracy. Politics is just not that simple. People in politics rarely, if ever have the time or the initiative to manipulate things so carefully; at best, the devious moments come when you see the political value of something you're already doing a little bit of already. The Sudan strike is a great example of that. There's a case where there was probably a recommendation from somewhere to target this Al Queda factory, and Clinton read the memo and said, "hey, let's do it today!" But entire wars, fabricated for electoral consumption? Not only risky, but rarely plausible in a day and age when there's never less than 20 folders on the presidential desk.

R.III

 

[CurtSibling]

Addressed to all conspiracy freaks.

I seriously doubt that any nation would engineer a war to boost
industry and profits, that line of thought smacks of conspiracy X-files gibberish.

It is more likely that Bush is your standard Replican US president,
operating during turbulent time and a extraordinary situation in the world.

People forget that last year's events changed the global playing field 'just a bit'...

Don't forget, kids;
We live in a global community when a terrorist group can reach
out and commit their dirty business in the heart of the civilised world.
Of course W Bush is going to have extended powers and be
able to act for 'The common good'! We are at war!
the US people back him because he is their leader! And quite rightly!
I think if he can prevent the hatemongering lunatics of the
world carry out another Sept 11, he should be given
the backing he needs to shield the innocent citizens.

Not idealism, truth.

Osama is not finished, although the Allies won the first tussle.
Tommorow your city could be hit, remember that, before you whine...

 

[sgrig]

I think the mass media are celebrating the victory in Afghanistan too early. The war there is far from over - bin Laden and Omar are still at large, most Taliban troops have just blended in with the local population, hiding their weapons, waiting to come out of hiding. A large proportion of the Afghan population still supports the Taliban and if there is any sign of instability in the country, the Taliban can easily return or at least make their presence felt by ambushing allied troops.

In this context I think it is highly unwise that US has now officially declared Iran, Iraq, N Korea as its enemies. Claims in the mass media that Iran supports some Taliban clerics are completely unjustified if you look at the recent history. Ever since Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, Iran, along with Russia, heavily supported the Northern Alliance against Taliban. In fact, the Iranians are even a different type of muslims from Taliban - Iranians are Shi'ites, Taliban are Sunni muslims. It also should not be forgotten who funded the Taliban at their early stages - USA. So now Pakistan who until 11-Sept was Taliban's key ally is now best friends with US who practically created the Taliban in the first place, while countries like Iran, who supported Taliban's enemies all along, are being accused of being part of 'axis of evil'.

I realise that US has a long-standing antagonism with Iran, and that Iran supports Hezbollah (or was it Hamas? anyway one of them), but recent allegations that Iran helped some top Taliban guys to escape really shocked me!

Oh, yeah and does anyone remember who funded Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war? That's right, USA.

So it seems that the US has a strange tendency to fund some ruler or organisation, and then decides that he/it is a threat to US and tries to eliminate it.

So my guess is that the King of Saudi Arabia needs to be afraid, very afraid.

My conclusion is that the US bred some monsters around the world and on 11-Sept paid for it. From now on the US should think twice before making friends with dodgy governments, in case they get out of control.

This is strictly my own opinion and I didn't mean to offend anyone, if I did, I'm truly sorry!

 

[TrailblazingScot]

My contribution...

"So why don't we just do our job"

"What? Just kill him?"

"Yeah"

"I'm not a cold blooded killer, are you are cold blooded killer? You got to let him do his job so then we can do our job and so we are the good guys."

"So let me get this straight...we let the bad guy kill the good guy and so when we kill the bad guy we are the good guys."

"yeah"

"terrific"


(Badly quoting from "Grosse Point Blank"

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by sgrig
A large proportion of the Afghan population still supports the Taliban and if there is any sign of instability in the country, the Taliban can easily return or at least make their presence felt by ambushing allied troops.

Afghan population supports the Taliban??? Where did you hear that?? Maybe they'll launch a suprise attack if they don't starve to death first. Its estimate about half of the Taliban's army was forced conscripts... you really think forced conscripts have that kind of morale? I'd estimate the ones that died in the fighting were the hardcore supporters... like the Iraqi army, the Taliban's policy of forced conscription caused huge desertion and surrender. Those people aren't going to fight for a regime that was collapsed that quickly; they have nothing to gain out of it now.

Originally posted by sgrig
It also should not be forgotten who funded the Taliban at their early stages - USA.

Myth. The Taliban as an orginization didn't exist in its Afghan ruling form when the U.S. aided Afghans against the Russians. The U.S. funnelled the money through Pakistan, and really had no say in who got it in the field. The way you state it, you make it sound like a fundamentalist sect called the Taliban popped up and the U.S. dolled out money because they supported their stances, which is absolutely not the case.

Originally posted by sgrig
So now Pakistan who until 11-Sept was Taliban's key ally is now best friends with US who practically created the Taliban in the first place, while countries like Iran, who supported Taliban's enemies all along, are being accused of being part of 'axis of evil'/

You're implying hypocracy here which isn't the case; Pakistan switched sides, not the United States. And Iran has been an 'enemy' for 20+ years, that is nothing new.

Originally posted by sgrig
Oh, yeah and does anyone remember who funded Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war? That's right, USA.

Iraq's #1 supplier was the Soviet Union. Iran's #1 supplier, also the Soviet Union. Iraq's top three suppliers of weapons: Russia, France, and China. Iran was a great threat at the time, as a result the choice for support was obvious. That was before Saddam began invading small neighbors, or we had accurate knowledge of his chemical weapons programs and policy towards his people. The Cold War made strange bedfellows all around.

Originally posted by sgrig
So it seems that the US has a strange tendency to fund some ruler or organisation, and then decides that he/it is a threat to US and tries to eliminate it.

Only if you break it down to the simplist possible terms, forget the security enviroment of the Cold War, and blind to the changes within these orginizations that caused a change in policy.

Originally posted by sgrig
So my guess is that the King of Saudi Arabia needs to be afraid, very afraid.

Hopefully his people will realize how much of their poverty is his fault, how wealthy they could be if they had a part in the oil industry, and how repressive he is to their personal freedoms. That is probably a bigger threat to him.

Originally posted by sgrig
My conclusion is that the US bred some monsters around the world and on 11-Sept paid for it.

That is making the implication that the U.S. is directly responsible for Sept.11. Skip the blame from psychopathic murdering terrorists and trying to legitimize their grievences; then point it at America to fit your world view.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
Can someone please explain to me how an idiot like Bush beat a well-respected, moderate McCain in the '00 Republican primaries? I don't mean to bash Republican voters here, I am seriously wondering how he won and by how much?

I don't get why the left makes these statements accusing President Bush of being some kind of incompetent fool.

And yes, this is specifically towards the left, because everyone on the right, has at least the respect enough not to make unjustified and ignorant judgements about people. We never called Clinton an idiot, we never called Carter an idiot, and we never called Johnson an idiot.

Am I calling all leftists rude and inconsiderate? Hardly. As much as I respect those on the left, despite their misguided political ideology, I will not resort to name-calling. But, I do not have respect for those that use childish name-calling games.

Sorry, Kurtz, but your offensive view has been invalidated by your own lack of informed judgement.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by sgrig
My conclusion is that the US bred some monsters around the world and on 11-Sept paid for it. From now on the US should think twice before making friends with dodgy governments, in case they get out of control.

This is strictly my own opinion and I didn't mean to offend anyone, if I did, I'm truly sorry!

Why don't you go down to Ground Zero in New York and tell those people you're sorry, and that you think it was their own fault that they were killed by terrorists.

If you've got the balls to do that, then you truly have no heart.