The Bush Pr Campaign
Eviscerator
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Strike fear in all Americans!</div> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/cheney.terror/index.html' target='_blank'>This is really starting to bug me.</a> Cheney's little speech is a classic, almost textbook, example of political propaganda in action. Here is the Vice President, defending the administration's decisions to pre-emptively strike Iraq while at the same time claiming that there are evil, yet <b>unnamed</b>, terrorists out there planning on killing tens if not thousands of people in a "single day of horror." This is pathetic, and it makes me want to puke.
Let's take a little look at history for starters. Russia parked nuclear weapons on an island in the Carribbean. These weapons were capable of killing millions of Americans in minutes. What is the proper response to such a threat? Do you A) pre-emptively strike the country that put them there, igniting full-blown nuclear war, or B) do you employ some heavy diplomacy and pray that humanity may continue existing? We all know what the choice was. Let's analyze WHY that was the right choice. Attacking the other country will lead to massive death and destruction. Any country capable of waging weapons of mass destruction will surely <b>use</b> them when attacked. Why else would they have them? This was the case with the U.S.S.R. Knowing millions of Americans would die as a result, the simple answer was to negotiate a deal with the Russians in return for the weapons' withdrawal.
Now, let's analyze modern times. We have an unknown, unnamed terrorist planning on killing tens of thousands of Americans in a single "day of horror." No idea who or what these people are... Cheney has not mentioned any names or countries or facts. Just some propaganda claiming that these unnamed enemies are actively working towards this goal. What kind of response would you have to something like that? If it were me, I'd like to know <b>who</b> these people are so we can hunt them down properly. Alas, no information is given. Just a few scattered tidbits here and there... "WMD-related activities in Iraq." What the hell is a "WMD-related activity?" A bunch of terrorists getting together during sunday school, gathered around a table with their elmer's glue and scraps of material, making paintings and collages about nuclear weapons? I'm not sure I understand exactly what constitutes an activity. If someone thinks about making a bomb, is that an activity? Do we pre-emptively strike and kill all other countries that even thought about making WMD? Which countries that actually <b>posess</b> WMD are good, and which ones are bad? North Korea has said they would be willing to annihilate the entire Korean Peninsula. Surely this is not a good thing. What are we doing about them? Why isn't the urgency as great there as it is with Iraq?
Well, I can give you my opinion. You would never strike another country that is known to be capable of striking back by killing millions of Americans. You just wouldn't do it. Why is bombing Iraq worth the lives of millions of Americans? It's not. So why did we bomb Iraq knowing this danger existed? Because the danger did <b>not</b> exist. It never did. The administration is even starting to admit this. So, knowing they lied in the past, what makes one believe they aren't lying now? It seems to me a very easy case here. You want to control Iraq for its oil. You can't do it by just invading them without having some kind of justification. So, you convince people that Iraq is capable of killing millions of Americans in one fell swoop, and that gets you in the door.
<b>Now look at what Cheney has said today.</b>
I'm trying to understand the roadmap being laid out here by the Bush Admin. They are obviously very carefully trying to craft a story again. This is the next phase in the line of pre-emptive strikes against other countries. My cynical side says they're going to destroy another country... the after effects being that it will help to improve their chances of dominating even more oil. Which one will it be? Anyone want to start taking bets? Maybe Iran? Maybe Syria? The line must be pretty high for Iran right now. I'd hate to be them.
Fear this beast:
<img src='http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/cheney.terror/cheney.story.ap.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Let's take a little look at history for starters. Russia parked nuclear weapons on an island in the Carribbean. These weapons were capable of killing millions of Americans in minutes. What is the proper response to such a threat? Do you A) pre-emptively strike the country that put them there, igniting full-blown nuclear war, or B) do you employ some heavy diplomacy and pray that humanity may continue existing? We all know what the choice was. Let's analyze WHY that was the right choice. Attacking the other country will lead to massive death and destruction. Any country capable of waging weapons of mass destruction will surely <b>use</b> them when attacked. Why else would they have them? This was the case with the U.S.S.R. Knowing millions of Americans would die as a result, the simple answer was to negotiate a deal with the Russians in return for the weapons' withdrawal.
Now, let's analyze modern times. We have an unknown, unnamed terrorist planning on killing tens of thousands of Americans in a single "day of horror." No idea who or what these people are... Cheney has not mentioned any names or countries or facts. Just some propaganda claiming that these unnamed enemies are actively working towards this goal. What kind of response would you have to something like that? If it were me, I'd like to know <b>who</b> these people are so we can hunt them down properly. Alas, no information is given. Just a few scattered tidbits here and there... "WMD-related activities in Iraq." What the hell is a "WMD-related activity?" A bunch of terrorists getting together during sunday school, gathered around a table with their elmer's glue and scraps of material, making paintings and collages about nuclear weapons? I'm not sure I understand exactly what constitutes an activity. If someone thinks about making a bomb, is that an activity? Do we pre-emptively strike and kill all other countries that even thought about making WMD? Which countries that actually <b>posess</b> WMD are good, and which ones are bad? North Korea has said they would be willing to annihilate the entire Korean Peninsula. Surely this is not a good thing. What are we doing about them? Why isn't the urgency as great there as it is with Iraq?
Well, I can give you my opinion. You would never strike another country that is known to be capable of striking back by killing millions of Americans. You just wouldn't do it. Why is bombing Iraq worth the lives of millions of Americans? It's not. So why did we bomb Iraq knowing this danger existed? Because the danger did <b>not</b> exist. It never did. The administration is even starting to admit this. So, knowing they lied in the past, what makes one believe they aren't lying now? It seems to me a very easy case here. You want to control Iraq for its oil. You can't do it by just invading them without having some kind of justification. So, you convince people that Iraq is capable of killing millions of Americans in one fell swoop, and that gets you in the door.
<b>Now look at what Cheney has said today.</b>
I'm trying to understand the roadmap being laid out here by the Bush Admin. They are obviously very carefully trying to craft a story again. This is the next phase in the line of pre-emptive strikes against other countries. My cynical side says they're going to destroy another country... the after effects being that it will help to improve their chances of dominating even more oil. Which one will it be? Anyone want to start taking bets? Maybe Iran? Maybe Syria? The line must be pretty high for Iran right now. I'd hate to be them.
Fear this beast:
<img src='http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/cheney.terror/cheney.story.ap.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Comments
Yeah, but once America tries to strike North Korea, the very same people ridiculing Bush for not taking action will blame him for taking another pre-emptive strike into his own hands and killing millions of civilians.
I mean you simply can't win. It makes me wonder if people are just out after Bush because he's bush, and not for what he does.
Nah, I'm pretty much out after Bush because of what he has done and what he is doing now. If he would have just stayed an incompetent doofus and not started bombing other countries I wouldn't really had a problem with him. Well, other than the tax cuts for the rich, and his lies about protecting the environment, and well... okay, most everything he does <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I should clarify... everything the <i>administration</i> does. Bush is not the mastermind behind any of this... he's just not smart enough for that.
propaganda stops working as soon as you recognise it.
if more people didnt revel in his BS, the world would be a much more peaceful/safe place.
So if we assume that informing and education people will make them able to see through that kind of propaganda, then I will be as bold as to state, that truly intelligent and informed people - and by this I mean people who master the whole spectrum of being a human, not just particular aspects like nuclear scientists bordering on authism or rabid environmentalists that would slaughter all of humanity to save <insert selected mammal/foliage> - would always chose not the conservative way of life that Bush and his administration represents. They seem to me to be very analytically capable, but unable to perform analysis on the full set of data. So they make erroneous assumptions.
If we think of it, what is the basic goal of life? To procreate. However, the human brain is a very adaptable piece of cognitive power. It absorbs and proces information from all senses. Some data might be bad. Usually the everyday stuff like the colour of the sky and the sensation of concrete isn't debatable. It's always the same. But how other people act is a variable. And if everyone around you think that it's better to attack everyone around you before they attack you - because they are gonna, we know it for sure, how can you believe anythign else yourself? In essence, it is just another way to make sure that there can be procreation, that the offspring will be safe. By waging war on the uncounted number of terrorists, the children of america will be safe. However, the poor sods cannot see that their actions have huge ripple effects on everything, and they again might have an outcome that they cannot predict. I really cannot agree that they "the neo conservatives" are anything conservative like. They're radicals, no better than the extreme left wing that assasinated politicians and a lot of other people in Euroope in the 70s. Radicals, extremists are usually the product of a poor intellectual and social diet.
Im off on a off-off topic tangent here.
But progaganda like that wouldn't work if people were informed, educated and would realize that they had to fear a lot of things OTHER than terrorists.
Okay first of all the cuban missle crisis is in now way relative to what is going on in Iraq. If, however, you are going to stick with this you need option "C) Invade the Island so that Russia cannot place the missles there" or "D) Nuke the island of the face of the earth", the last option being the least favorable of them. The fact is the conditions of Iraqs surrender was that he disarm and most people agree that he didn't. He had 12 years to do this, and the UN pu55y-footed around the issue. Saddam even went as far as to attempt an assassination on a former president.
now onto
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nah, I'm pretty much out after Bush because of what he has done and what he is doing now. If he would have just stayed an incompetent doofus and not started bombing other countries I wouldn't really had a problem with him<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you are any smarter? Okay so his dad got him into Yale and he ended up with a C average. I know plenty of intelligent people that get worse grades. Bush enjoyed a party like any other college student and lived his life, and like any other college student he let it effect his grade. Bumble his words is not a valid arguement. You stand in front of cameras addressing millions of people after a day full of briefings and see how well you do. He is lacking Charisma, but charisma is not a requirement to get into office.
moving on
All this anti-iraq war crap is just that crap. over half these people did nothing when clinton started the bombing in the Bosnia/Kosavo (spelling) affair. Sure we were saving a group of people from genocide, so we gave the upper hand to the other side (I wouldn't be suprised if they start killing each other again). People choose instead to protest a war that would free millions of people from the reign of a madman we so mistakenly helped to power. They would rather the iraqies suffer under Sadam, than us liberate them.
They are not protesting the war, rather they are protesting Bush. They complain about tax cuts, yet unemloyment is starting to drop. They pretty much just complain about anything he does. Anything Bush does, there is always someone on the other side protesting it.
Every administration uses propaganda, and you should take most things that and administration says with a grain of salt.
Anyhow I leave you with this
There has to be a line where diplomacy ends and actions are taken. While talking through you problems is noble; when only one side is interested in talking and honoring their word, diplomacy has failed. When the opposing side is too stupid to listen to reason, you flex your muscle to instill fear. If this does not work, you solve your problem the old fashion way with a boot to the face.
Anyhow Im on a rant(and its getting out of control and off topic), If I sound too partisan I apologizes... as I really dont care for any political party. They all have a intolerance towards each other that leaves a bad taste in the air around them.
They are not protesting the war, rather they are protesting Bush. They complain about tax cuts, yet unemloyment is starting to drop. They pretty much just complain about anything he does. Anything Bush does, there is always someone on the other side protesting it.
Every administration uses propaganda, and you should take most things that and administration says with a grain of salt.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bombings in ex-Yougoslavia was UN or NATO sanctioned at least, so unlike the Iraqi invasion there was just mad russians and chinese back then. Pretty much the whole EU stood behind it, and participated. If it worked or not is not my plate, I don't know, but the conduct of the iraqi invasion was at least short sighted by the attackers. So far no WMD has been found, and on top of that, UN didn't sanction, no formal body did. I think that was a bad thing for stability in the world, particularly in the power of consensus. And in the end, what keeps us from numerous wars are peer pressure from other countries. Europe has been caught in uncounted number of wars for a couple of millenniums due to that.
I think it's valid to attack Bush and his regime on that point.
As for propaganda. I think the term is a bit fussy. What exactly do we understand by Propaganda?
The thing is, you don't see people jumping up and down shouting against the US actions in <i>afghanistan</i> now do you ? The reason is because <i>there really was a legitimate threat there</i>.
You know why alot of people are anti-iraq war ? Because we were <b>lied to</b>. Saying that we should do it for humanitarian reasons is great and all, but this was not and never was the main reason that the administration used for going into Iraq. It was WMD all the way.
Do you honestly know how many countries are as deserving (if not more so) of "liberation" ? That is why "humanitarian" reasons is very, very suspect. Seems like an oil crusade to me.
Nobody denies Saddam was a psycho that tormented his own people, nobody. The US fought a brilliant IMO military campaign to oust him. Too bad about the after-care though ...
To address the points that were on-topic. My inclusion of Cuba was to show a history of what kind of action you should take when something happens. Knowing that your enemy possesses weapons capable of destroying most of humanity, including most if not all of your countrymen, you very carefully weigh the options available to you and then make logical, sound decisions as to how to proceed. The goal is to avoid death and destruction when you <b>know</b> your opponent is capable. We had absolutely nothing to fear in Iraq, as has been shown by the complete lack of any WMD. My case is that the administration knew this already, otherwise they would not have invaded Iraq. The consequences if Iraq actually had WMD and was planning on using them would have been catastrophic for the U.S. had we invaded them with that knowledge. But the propaganda and lies put forth by the administration were that not only did Iraq have these WMD, but also they were planning on using them at any given moment.
Suddenly, now, the American people are being bombarded with even more rhetoric. Cheney this time around. He doesn't actually name who are enemy is, however. That is really troubling to me. With the Cuban crisis you had a clear-cut enemy and you knew what was required. Here, there's nothing. Just a bunch of terrorists out there somewhere wanting to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in one fell swoop. That kind of statement is almost ridiculous in its pompousness. The PR objective is very clear: support the administration's plans because you're in imminent danger. This is Goering's quote, by the way. Coming to you live, every day. My fear is in regards to what the objective is now. We've handled Iraq... where are they going with this one? Why do they need to defend what happened in Iraq? The invasion is already done, so what's the use in defending past actions? The only reason is because they're <b>not</b> done. Countries in the Middle East, beware! Some made-in-the-USA bombs are headed your way.
By the way, Clinton did not attack Bosnia. That was a NATO operation. You won't hear me defending anything Clinton did, because I am in no way a Democrat. I despise them all. Bush, however, is forging his own route, whether anyone supports him it or not. The justification does not exist, however, and that is a serious, serious problem to me. We cannot wage war against unnamed people... it doesn't work. How can you ever be victorious without a known enemy? You can't. But you can do a lot of damage along the way... and you can plunder quite a few countries that you've destroyed. Unfortunately, many many people are going to die as a result.
Okay first of all the cuban missle crisis is in now way relative to what is going on in Iraq. If, however, you are going to stick with this you need option "C) Invade the Island so that Russia cannot place the missles there" or "D) Nuke the island of the face of the earth", the last option being the least favorable of them. The fact is the conditions of Iraqs surrender was that he disarm and most people agree that he didn't. He had 12 years to do this, and the UN pu55y-footed around the issue. Saddam even went as far as to attempt an assassination on a former president.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
D was covered in A. Assets are a segment of that country, and 'nuking the island off the face of the earth' would have the same effect, being seen as a preemptive strike. And C is a little impossible, with them already BEING there. Invading after the fact? See response to 'D'.
Amazing. Given that much time to disarm, and... wow. Not a SINGLE weapon-of-mass-distruction was found and verified. And just how many world leaders has the US assassinated? Much less SUCCESSFULLY?
In truth, the only thing that was found in Iraq was a weapon of mass distraction, which was used against the american people by its own government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
now onto
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nah, I'm pretty much out after Bush because of what he has done and what he is doing now. If he would have just stayed an incompetent doofus and not started bombing other countries I wouldn't really had a problem with him<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you are any smarter? Okay so his dad got him into Yale and he ended up with a C average. I know plenty of intelligent people that get worse grades. Bush enjoyed a party like any other college student and lived his life, and like any other college student he let it effect his grade. Bumble his words is not a valid arguement. You stand in front of cameras addressing millions of people after a day full of briefings and see how well you do. He is lacking Charisma, but charisma is not a requirement to get into office.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but there are actually doubts now as to the validity of that 'C'. There've been many allegations that it was more a cash-grade, none of which will be commented upon by any of the parties involved.
And if you plan to go and speak in front of a large crowd, for one you practice your speech. You learn to PRONOUNCE WORDS PROPERLY (he still hasn't said 'nuclear', to my knowledge), and figure out how the heck to use a teleprompter at the very least. Either lazy, incompetent, or outright retarded. Take your pick.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
All this anti-iraq war crap is just that crap. over half these people did nothing when clinton started the bombing in the Bosnia/Kosavo (spelling) affair. Sure we were saving a group of people from genocide, so we gave the upper hand to the other side (I wouldn't be suprised if they start killing each other again). People choose instead to protest a war that would free millions of people from the reign of a madman we so mistakenly helped to power. They would rather the iraqies suffer under Sadam, than us liberate them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny that Daddy put him into power, and then tried to remove him again when he started getting his own ideas, instead of being a good little puppet. Life throws you funny little curves like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
They are not protesting the war, rather they are protesting Bush. They complain about tax cuts, yet unemloyment is starting to drop. They pretty much just complain about anything he does. Anything Bush does, there is always someone on the other side protesting it.
Every administration uses propaganda, and you should take most things that and administration says with a grain of salt.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but most administration relies on propaganda roughly 15-35% of the time. Bush has had his PR people on *everything*, to raise the perception. I mean, the crap he's pulled. Originally referring to the 9/11 planejackers as 'folks', only to go back after his marketing director almost put a hole in the wall with 'evil terrorists'. Setting up his speeches... I mean, seriously. The stunt with Mt. Rushmore was SO outre. I'd honestly rather see the whole mountain taken to rubble before his doped-up face would sit up there with men who DESERVED it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Anyhow I leave you with this
There has to be a line where diplomacy ends and actions are taken. While talking through you problems is noble; when only one side is interested in talking and honoring their word, diplomacy has failed. When the opposing side is too stupid to listen to reason, you flex your muscle to instill fear. If this does not work, you solve your problem the old fashion way with a boot to the face.
Anyhow Im on a rant(and its getting out of control and off topic), If I sound too partisan I apologizes... as I really dont care for any political party. They all have a intolerance towards each other that leaves a bad taste in the air around them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fear tactics are the first resort of the weak. You frighten people to get your way. Bush has done it many times, along with good naming schemes (the 'Patriot Act'? It's literally the 'you can freely wiretap and snoop into our lives with no court order' act) basing it around Big Bad Terrorism. This is the damn Red Scare all over again. McCarthyism is back after its nap, and the american people are just TOO happy to see it.
Seriously, what Bush needs is a slap in the face and a boot to the posterior, and get someone with more brains than marketing staff into office.
I just can't believe we have enough rednecks in this country to get someone like Dubya elected.
Politics is a process of swaying opinion. Tell poor people they'll get no food, tell old people they'll get no medicine, etc.. Stuff happened, now folks are debating it. That's what people do. It was his opinion before, during, and after. So at least he is consistent.
These sorts of things aren't always propaganda. They're just the opinion of people who happen to disagree with other people. If folks don't like hearing it, they should stop asking. As it stands now, more people are interested in asking. /shrug
<a href='http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3807.htm' target='_blank'>What Is Happening in America?</a>
Here's the best excerpt:
<i>"This is, quite simply, the most frightening American administration in modern times, one that is appalling both to the left and to traditional conservatives. This junta is unabashed in its imperialist ambitions; it is enacting an Orwellian state of Perpetual War; it is dismantling, or attempting to dismantle, some of the most fundamental tenets of American democracy; it is acting without opposition within the government, and is operating so quickly on so many fronts that it has overwhelmed and exhausted any popular opposition."</i>
There you have it.
[edit]
Stupid tags!
...And what if (and believe me this is hypothetical) what if Sadaam gave his WMD to Syria when the U.S. was trying to get support from the U.N. for all those months. Maybe thats why we can't find anything..?
--Edit--
That website of "What's wrong with America" doesn't seem to proffessionally well done. Are you sure it is using reliable sources? "one that is appalling both to the left and to traditional conservatives" Personally, I don't find Bush appalling and i'm conservative. Ha...crazy liberal slanted media, what will they publish next?
That statement is really quite disturbing to me. Do you know how many people have died as a result? Ugh. I suppose this is the kind of American attitude that is going to doom humanity. Just quickly... 1. we helped Saddam build his forces 2. WMD cache was destoyed a long time ago 3. Israel has their own WMD within striking distance of the entire Middle East. No one seems to be concerned about the dangerous tyrant running this country or the incessant terrorist activities Israel partakes in themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That website of "What's wrong with America" doesn't seem to proffessionally well done. Are you sure it is using reliable sources? Personally, I don't find Bush appalling and i'm conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you contradicting anything said within the article, or just commenting on how the website looks? The article, written by Eliot Weinberger, was written for a German magazine. This site, and many others, have merely reprinted it. Put whatever cover you want on it. Bush is a neo-conservative, which makes sense as to why you might consider his policies to be unappalling.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's pretty clear that any purely Capatilistic society will eventually exploit it's power if left unchecked, and it's been said many times that the US's socio-economic infrastructure lends itself to driving the country into Totalitarianism.
Go <a href='http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/archives/001103.php' target='_blank'>here</a> for an explination of such.
And it's not so much of a conspiracy theory as it is a market trend : P
Haha, yeah we did. We played Sadaam for a fool, he takes care of Iran for us, thinks he's on our good side, then WAM. Desert Storm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. WMD cache was destoyed a long time ago <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oops. Oh well, one less tyrant to worry about in the near/distant future.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel has their own WMD within striking distance of the entire Middle East.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I trust Isreal more than some crazy tyrant that tortures his own people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one seems to be concerned about the dangerous tyrant running this country or the incessant terrorist activities Israel partakes in themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This "dangerous tyrant" can be voted out of office next year, and if he wins that, he only gets four more years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or the incessant terrorist activities Israel partakes in themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting, where might I find more of this information?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you contradicting anything said within the article, or just commenting on how the website looks? The article, written by Eliot Weinberger, was written for a German magazine. This site, and many others, have merely reprinted it. Put whatever cover you want on it. Bush is a neo-conservative, which makes sense as to why you might consider his policies to be unappalling. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could go and do the article on a point-by-point basis, but I am eating right now.
--Edit--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's pretty clear that any purely Capatilistic society will eventually exploit it's power if left unchecked, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marx also says that Communism would work. So there went HIS credibility.
Secondly, you're basing your information off the news. Where does the news get thier information about foreign actions? Well, unless they have reporters storming bunkers in Iraq looking for WMD, then they get it from the government. The government could say whatever it wanted. If that's the case, why use this so called propaganda? They could just ship in 3 tons weapons grade plutonium, have the Press Secretary present it as evidence a press breifing, and who would know the difference? With that said, everything you hear could be lies from the government and you wouldn't know the difference.
The point of the above is that your basing your arguements on as low as 3rd hand data, assuming it wen t straight from Iraq, to a news group, to you, which I highly doubt. So until any of you have first hand experience, you could all just be passing along lies. I'm sure I could find a legitimate looking webpage that said the the sun goes around the earth, and how am I to know the difference?
Third and lastly. Stop complaining about the way things are run. I don't see any of you actively working to change it, so you have no right to complain about anything. Until you get your lazy self out from in front of your computer to run for a government position, (as politely as I'm gonna get after reading most of your ignorant posts) shut your moronic pie hole.
As true as your post may be, and as much as I agree with it, I'm going to have to advise you to leave out the whole "moronic, lazy, poster" comments next time.
Moderators will eat you, and whiny thin skinned posters will flame you.
If you don't want to partake in the discussion other than to say "shut your moronic pie hole" then I suggest you not say anything at all, because that kind of language won't get you very far.
Secondly, you're basing your information off the news. Where does the news get thier information about foreign actions? Well, unless they have reporters storming bunkers in Iraq looking for WMD, then they get it from the government. The government could say whatever it wanted. If that's the case, why use this so called propaganda? They could just ship in 3 tons weapons grade plutonium, have the Press Secretary present it as evidence a press breifing, and who would know the difference? With that said, everything you hear could be lies from the government and you wouldn't know the difference.
The point of the above is that your basing your arguements on as low as 3rd hand data, assuming it wen t straight from Iraq, to a news group, to you, which I highly doubt. So until any of you have first hand experience, you could all just be passing along lies. I'm sure I could find a legitimate looking webpage that said the the sun goes around the earth, and how am I to know the difference?
Third and lastly. Stop complaining about the way things are run. I don't see any of you actively working to change it, so you have no right to complain about anything. Until you get your lazy self out from in front of your computer to run for a government position, (as politely as I'm gonna get after reading most of your ignorant posts) shut your moronic pie hole. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well one of the points of the link I posted, which I don't think you were referring to, is that the so called propaganda discourges people from voting or taking part in politics, it proliferates the idea of working to get only yourself ahead in life and to achieve higher financial standings.
For example in the US 1% of the countries population possess most of the countries wealth (Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, etc.), but how many people have the idea that they are one day going to be rich, how many people work their entire lives towards achieving financial goals. You see you have 85% of the country trying to cram themselves into 1%, your going to have 84% of the people be very dissapointed, and if you were to believe the idea of propeganda, the goverment tries to keep these dissapointed people from voting to change corperate structures and economic plans, which we could very easily do if we were all inclined to.
edit: added Paul Allen as to not offend Mr. Allen : P
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bombings in ex-Yougoslavia was UN or NATO sanctioned at least, so unlike the Iraqi invasion there was just mad russians and chinese back then<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My only quote
I don't believe the bombings were sanctioned by the UN, NATO did sanction it. While I do believe that getting the sanction of the UN and NATO. I do not believe it was necessary in Iraq. I'm not writing to bash the French, but they are the main reason that "Gulf War 2: Son of a Bush"(ok that was stupid but it will stay) was not sanctioned. The French believe for some reason that they must cheack our power no matter what. This can be seen in their harbering of wanted pedophiles and murderers from the US as well. They also sold military intelligence to the vietamese during our folley in vietnam (or so says my friends Grand Father who was in Millitary Intelligence). They were the source of some of the bad intelligence about Iraqs nuclear bomb program. Knowing this, I would not think France would OK a war that we propose.
Ahh man someone put "Fifth Element" on, there goes my train of thought. I must go watch it, I love that movie.
Anyhow I will go with this. Its only been 6 months since major conflicts have stopped. There are still some hot zones, and fire fights going on. The country is as big as california. let me bury stuff in california and send troops to shoot at you, then see how long it takes you to find stuff. And as someone said earlier, how many of you have seen classified documents on iraq? No one, eh? Give them some time, at least until the fighting stops.
The problem is it's not just Bush, the current resident. There is an entire junta directing him. They will continue to insert their own people into the most powerful positions of this country. It started 40 years ago, and continues to this day. Going off-topic so that's as far as I'm going.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting, where might I find more of this information?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here goes. <a href='http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12748' target='_blank'>1</a> <a href='http://pilger.carlton.com/palestine/israeliterror' target='_blank'>2</a> <a href='http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article511.shtml' target='_blank'>3</a>. That's enough to get you started without taking this into a topic about Israel. Israel considers their state-sponsored terrorism "self-defense."
i am shocked and appaled.
perhaps you avatar is more descriptive of your personality than you intended.
NEWS FLASH: POLITICIANS LIE
<b><i>you have a duty to watch your government and make sure they keep in line.</b></i>
I think families of soldiers would care if their loved ones died in a needless conflict. You don't apparently ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop complaining about the way things are run. <b>I don't see any of you actively working to change it</b>*, so you have no right to complain about anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And God gave us irony, and it was Good.
*emphasis mine