On the forth comming war & the "liberal" media

Holy liberators. Feh.

Someone once said...I can't remember what movie it was from...I'm inclined to say Devil's Advocate, but I'm not certain. "The devil's best trick was convincing the world he didn't exist."

I'll take that further. His second best trick was convincing humankind that waging war in god's name was just.

His next best trick was convincing normally reasonable Americans that the US government never lies, is always right, and are always the good guys.

I'd like to see him convince the Native Americans of that one. I don't think the devil himself has that much power.

Funny thing about that American flag. For millions it's a symbol of Freedom, fresh starts, and a dream of success. For the Jews of WWII it was hope, release from the horrendous treatment of the Nazi regime. It was assuredly their deliverance.

But for just as many, it's a symbol of oppression, intolerance, and government abandonment. During the same era the American flag was liberating Europe, Japanese Americans were uprooted from their homes and dumped in concentration camps. A bit further back, blacks were not allowed to own property, being little more than property themselves. Human beings traded on open markets like livestock. Government troops slaughtered the 'barbaric' natives' in the tiny POW camps they were allocated. I'm sorry, I meant 'reservations'. Men were shot, women were raped and dismembered, babies were ripped from their mother's wombs. Then the troops would march through the local town showing their 'trophies'. Everything from ears and fingers, to various organs. Some women's wombs were cut out and worn on the soldiers' heads like hats. But, remember, the Natives were the savages, the barbarians. The government said so. The same government that honoured maniacs like George Custer and Mark Clark as heroes.

A little later on in history, the government started another campaign of 'liberation' in a little-known country called "IndoChina". It sent hundreds of thousands of troops to this tiny, barely industrialized country. And left them there to rot. Tying their hands with ludicrous rules of engagment, exposing them to all sorts of ungodly chemicals of death. How many of those soldiers got left behind in POW camps? How many more still rot today in sub-par VA hospitals, suffering from the effects of war and chemicals?

I'm damn tired of hearing only one side of the story(s). The government approved side.

Holy liberators, indeed.

 

The silencing of Chris Rock doesn't prove a non-liberal or conservative media. Its a relatively conservative and patriotic time, and one studio realized this and didn't want to hurt their movie. This proves that there is a more conservative feeling in America right now, it doesn't prove that the media isn't liberal.



And right now, for the most part, it isn't. It wouldn't sell if it was liberal, because the general public feels more patriotic during times of strife overseas and believes in supporting the president and the troops. However, the media is not usually conservatively biased and during the 2000 presidential election it was very liberally biased. Bush was insulted and maligned quite freqently, about his low grades, rich father and connections, and his mistakes in speeches. Gore's extremist environmental beliefs, and equally bad grades, as well as his father and his connections were barely mentioned.

And there is still liberal press. The New York Times sells the war as if the US is losing badly, when it has really gone quite well so far.

 

Quite right.

It proves that someone else is trying to control what an artist has to say. It proves that the only opinion one is allowed to voice is one that supports political power games, blood and violence. Government sanctioned opinion.

It proves that Americans have gotten so caught up in their nationalistic fervor that they've lost thair sense of humor, been blinded by the propaganda while they eat their 'american' fries, and boycott artists for having opinions. But hey, nationalism is wonderful. Look what it did for hitler.

And it proves that the Land of the Free, isn't. How free is a place when artists, comedians, no less, are afraid to voice their opinions?

 

Artists and Celebrities can voice their oppinions all they want. Some of them choose not to because they know that the American public has a right to boycott their products if they dont like what they say. They choose not to voice their oppinion because they dont want to loose thier jobs. I agree that right now, the media (for the most part) doesnt strike me as being "liberal", however I agree that durring the presidential elections they were much more critical of Bush than of Gore (though they made plenty of jokes about him to). Overall, I think the media does provide all the information, for those who say it doesnt, how do you know that YOUR media doesnt slant things (CBC)? I dont think anyone can really get a completely fair view of things until after the events have retired into history, in which case people can analyze all sorts of records to get the real picture. Based on what I know, I think this war is justified. I admit that the US government has done plenty of "not so good" things in the past, certianly the way we "won" the west was not done morally. Slavery was not moral either. (note: Slavery is no longer practiced in this country, african americans have equall rights to all other americans, they may not be completely equal (yet) in society, however they are moving in that direction.) The way we treated Japanese americans durring WW2 was not good, but its in the past now and most people have admitted the mistake and moved on. Supplying the Afghans with weapons to fight the soviets, and then turning a blind eye to the rebuilding of their country was a mistake. So was playing Iran and Iraq against eachother to protect our interests in the middle east. However, we were NOT the bad guys in Somalia, Bosnia, WW2, the gulf war, and in my opinion, our support for Isreal (but thats a whole seperate topic for another debate). In short, the united states isnt perfect, no well established country can claim a perfect record.
So....... just because the US has done some bad things, doesnt mean that everything it has done has been bad or that everything it will do is bad.

 

I'll support the troops, but not the war effort. It's not the soldiers' fault that some frat-boy punk with a bug up his ass sent them to kill or be killed. Likewise, I will not support afformentioned frat-boy. Whether the US is at war or not.

Patriotic? There's nothing patriotic, nothing American about silencing someone's opinion. There's nothing patriotic about changing or silencing one's own opinion just because the US is at war. It's hypocritical at best.

Oh gods help us, that someone, a politician, no less, might support protecting our natural resources. That's so much worse than shipping troops off to die in some desert to free those oppressed oil wells.

Yes, and his ties to censorship, and support of silencing musicians was barely mentioned too. He gets no support from me either.

At best, I lay money that this war is nothing more than a diversionary tactic, to sway public opinion for bush. How better to sway opinion for an unpopular, questionable president? Create an enemy. Start a war, win a war. At least it will give the govt the opportunity to sneak in some oppressive, unethical, or unpopular bills by hiding it amidst the double-talk of Freedom, and homeland security. On top of that it gives the added bonus to help sway support away from those who question, those who satirize. Those who might sway support from the administration.

At worst, I fear it is the beginning of an attempt to conquer the world.

But this is the point that everyone seems to be missing. Just because our government has started a war, is no reason to lend our blind, unwavering support.
Sure, we've been TOLD hussein has WMD, even been shown a supposed factory for chemical weapons.
A. How do we know it's what we're being told it is?
B: How do we know it's not a mockup in Arizona, or Langley, VA.?
C: How do we know that Gulf War v. 2.0 isn't simply a testing ground for the military's new toys?

The marvel of modern video-editing methods is quite astounding.

We don't know that. We'd like to believe we're being told the truth. We'd like to believe that this war is justified. Saddam hussein is one lunatic among many, and it is true that Iraq has very little ties with actual terrorism. Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and yes, even America, has shown just as much, if not more link to terrorist activity.

Again, history is subjective. History is written by the winners. How do we know the truth we're being told, is in fact the truth.

And that is all the more reason to question, and be critical of any action the US government takes. We know what the government is capable of. To be critical and question is to take steps to ensure that those atrocities don't repeat themselves.

 

I think it will be appropriate for me to post a text I've written for another forum, a bit of my own analysis of this whole mess. It may be a bit self-centered, and my views had changed a bit sinec the day this was written, but I think most points are still valid. Warning: some of the things I'm about to say might turn out to be controversial to say the least.

There's an awful lot of talking about World War III it lately. Some people think that World War III is about to break out (with the American invasion to Iraq). Some think that the war is already going. When disagreement is that big, its not surprising at all that some people (like someone who I had just argued with on another forum) thinks that there is no war and there won't be any.
I think World War III had been going on for at least a year and a half. If not everyone have noticed it, its because World War III resembles the previous World war even less than World War II resembled World War I.

World War III had been declared in september 2001, on the so called UN World conference against racism in the South African city of Durban. It was a truly outrageous event. The conference, that was supposed to discuss a variety of racism based human right violations all over the world, had been hijacked for propaganda purposes and turned into a battle- a united front of the third world dictatorships against the Western states. Being a traditional and the most vulnerable target for obsessive hatred, Israel was singled out for censure and abuse, while discussing racial intolerance and resulting human rights violations in China, Sri Lanka and other countries was suppressed- often by excluding human rights groups that were likely to raise the issue from participating in the conference (for example, 50 of the member states voted for excluding the US based Human Rights in China group from the event, 17 more abstained). Only one issue not related to the Palestinian question made it through the wall of agressive propaganda. Guess which one it was? That's right, the demand to the US for reparations to its citizens of African descent. Leaving alone the relevance of the demand itself, it was hardly the most urgent racial intolerance case in today's world, but it was a demand to America, which made it top priority.

Plainly put, the Durban conference was an ultimatum to the West, a declaration of hostility, using Israel as "casus belli" and marking the US as the ultimate goal. Voting on the final resolution made it extremely clear- the world is divided into two coalitions, time to take sides. The resolution, aimed exclusively at Israel (no other state had been even mentioned), was supported by the Muslim world and the majority of the so called "non-aligned" states. Who was against, except the US and Israel for obvious reasons? An extremely unusual alliance: ALL 15 members of the European Union (ever seen them voting together on ANYTHING? Or voting against an anti-Israeli resolution???), Eastern Europe (also quite surprising), India (first time in history that they vote against the "non-aligned"!), Russia (voting against their traditional pro-Arab foreign policy!), the nations of the Latin America (don't remember them voting together with the US too often as well), and Japan.

Well, the ultimatum was presented. What had the West done? Ignored. Three months later passenger planes crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon, providing World War III with its own Pearl Harbor, "casus belli" that is impossible to ignore.
George Bush the Second happened to be the one who has to face the challenge. He is a man of action, ready to face the difficulties and he doesn't pity the holy cows of pacifism and political correctness too much. The problem is that Bush and speeches don't go well together. He doesn't want to cause big panic and declare World War III out loud, but in one of his speeches he says one word too much. This word is "crusade".

The Muslim leaders all jump on their feet, yelling "Bush wants to be a crusader, he declares war on Islam!" Well, they were almost right. Almost- because as far as I know, for an American there is another meaning to the word "crusade". "Crusade to Europe"- the title of the book by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II (and later US president) Dwight D. Eisenhauer. By saying the word "crusade", Bush had revealed his vision of the situation- he is sure that the US is facing a new global threat, which is no less dangerous than Hitler. This new force threatens the very existance of the Western civilization, and should be fought against.

Of course, the diplomatic damage from Bush's mistake had to be urgently minimized, the rhetorics changed to less agressive, more politically correct ones, in order not to alert both the leaders abroad and America's own citizens. Who wants to hear about World War III? Don't we all know that there can't be World War III, that a new world war will be the Armageddon, the nuclear holocaust, the end of the human race? But back to Colin Powell trying to cover what Bush had exposed.

The rhetorics had changed, US administration is doing their best to minimize the effect of the accursed "crusade" speech. The new tune goes more or less as follows: "We will not make generalizations. Not all Muslims are the same, there is "radical" Islam, and there is "moderate" Islam, and if all of a sudden there was a democratic Muslim state, the US would have nothing against it..." To top it all (and confuse the outsiders completely), Bush draws his "Axis of evil": Iraq-Iran-North Korea- and once again exposes the true picture: the US is fighting not against a handful of outcast dictators, but against the good old enemy, the Axis (this, by the way, explains North Korea- to be complete, the new Axis needs a Far Eastern end, just like the first one had).

In the meantime- between 9/11 and the "Axis of evil- the US crushes the "Muslim revolution" of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The victory got surprisingly little attention (compared to the "Desert storm" for example) for two reasons:
1) The publically declared goal- capturing or killing Bin Laden and all those directly involved in 9/11- was not achieved.
2)By successfully destroying the Taliban in less then a month the US army and air force had smashed one of the corner stones of the 20th century political mythology- "a revolutionary nation/nation fighting for its independence can't be defeated by force". This fact is something extremely difficult to admit for many people who practice Marxism based ideologies and for the pacifists (aren't all wars supposed to be long and bloody?). But its been proved that when not restrained by agressive inside opposition, the US is capable of fighting fast and successful wars with relatively low number of civilian or friendly casualities. It doesn't have to be Vietnam anymore.

I bet you're already tired of reading (I'm definitely tired of typing), so I'll make it short. I just hope all of the above makes sense and is somewhat coherent. Trying to draw a conclusion out of all this, I get more or less the following: World War III is already in the middle, whether we like it or not, but there will be no Armageddon. The coming invasion to Iraq is just another tactical operation, not the first one and not the last, definitely not a war in itself or a trigger event for a total annihilation. World War III is a war in disguise, dozens of "minor conflicts", that reshape the world piece by piece. The US ultimate goal in this war is probably Saudi Arabia (Muslim financial and spiritual center). Iraq most likely isn't a goal in itself, just another battle that has to be fought in order to win the whole campaign. The other side's goal is exousting the US economically and spiritually by using terrorist tactics, and eventually provoking a new Great Depression, after which the US could be outweighted by either of today's lesser powers- Europe, China or the alliance of the Muslim states.

Well, that's my brand new theory in progress. All thoughts and criticism welcome, but please no name calling and second hand slogans. I get enough of them lately.

 

That's an interesting view Solaris. I personally can't find too much to pick apart. It's also a somewhat refereshing view, and perhaps a bit more objective than most.

An interesting aside, about WWIII. There's a game out called WWIII: Black Gold. Some of you may have heard of it, may even have it. In this game, as you could guess from the title, World War III has broken out. Why? In the interests of hoarding oil. The three armies you can choose from are Iraq, Russia, and the US. (I'd like to see more choice of armies, but that's just me) The point is, that I found the storyline not only realistic, but highly plausible and probable. And it's interesting the chosen theaters in the game. It starts in Iraq, then moves to Siberia, then finally the US, beginning in Alaska. Makes me wonder if it isn't a mockup of a training mission scenario.

Also, Nostrodamus did predict a WWIII, started by a king in a blue turban. A blue turban, a black beret. Close enough for a prediction from 500 years ago. Now not all of his predictions have come true, but enough of them have to at least give me pause to think.
Now there's this summit in Durban that you mention. Durban is even closer to turban than a beret.
Well I know I'm reaching here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprized to find out that WWIII has broken out, and because of the changes in policy, technology, et al. it certainly wouldn't resemble any of the previous wars.

The only thing I can pick apart is this:

I don't know that anything's been proven, except that one can't hunt down a single terrorist or group with a massive army on unfamiliar ground. If, of course, that was actually the goal. The other problem with that statement is this: When the general populace supports the removal of a totalitarian, facist regime, it makes the work of those removing said regime easier. And, of course, if we were going in there to dismantle the Taliban, then we shouldn't have been fed the lines about bin laden. I, for one, would've lent my full support to that end. Religious zealots are dangerous, and have no business controlling a country. The catholic church has proven that in Europe for...nearly 2000 years.
Although I can't argue that the military is more effective when politicians don't tie their hands. However, war is still a bloody mess rife with inhumanity. War should only be undertaken after all other possiblities have been exhausted.
If I felt all possibilities have been exhausted, and I felt the administration was on the level with the general public, and I didn't see American Freedoms shrinking, I'd be a lot less critical of the administration. I'd be a lot less critical of bush, if I didn't hear his speeches littered with words like 'crusades' and 'they(Iraqis) don't believe in god, not as we do".

As I've said before, those are not words that belong in an American presidents vocabulary, let alone as reasons for war. Religious zealots are dangerous, and have no business controlling a country, or a military.

These are the points that the die-hard republican conservatives seem to be missing, as they convince themselves that bush can do no wrong. That their way is the only way. He wants lower taxes, he's a great man. Nevermind that our Freedoms are shrinking, that the Constitution is evaporating. He wants lower taxes. All is fine and dandy, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. What a great president. He wants lower taxes. Nevermind that he can't seem to form complete, coherent sentences. Bush and Charles seem to have a lot in common in that respect.

All that aside, I say again. Interesting view Solaris, quite provocative. Thank you for posting it.

 

[bolding mine]

I wouldn't call approval ratings in the 80 percentile "unpopular". And I'm not referring to his approval ratings as of right now, with the war going on, and all. I mean his approval ratings right after he was elected.

 

Bush has had a popularity above 60% for as long as i can remember, cept for maybe for a little while after the election, and support for the war is 60-70% today in the United States. He isn't unpopular.

And talking about WWIII i must remind everyone of Fallout, the series with one of the coolest plots and war. China invades Alaska and the US annexes Canada, all in the name of oil! A sweet story, and a sweet game, that i recently went back to.

 

Now, see there's something I simply do not understand. Where do these numbers come from?

Maybe it's just my area, and I remember seeing lots of headlines that bush's popularity is/was falling. But very few, perhaps one out of 20, had any use for bush prior to 9-11. Democrat or republican alike. Even my father who's mr republican himself was damn reluctant to lend bush support. He's been constant target of comedians and satirists(ok, that's not a good argument..what president or public figure hasn't been lampooned). Even many of my friends in the military were reluctant bush supporters. Quite a few of them admitted to voting for bush only because they were afraid that Gore would go ahead and gore the military, and leave them stranded and hog-tied like Clinton did in Haiti. Then, 9-11 happens, and all of a sudden he's wonderful, and can do no wrong.

The point is this: based on what I've seen, bush was not popular until the 9-11 attacks, then suddenly he became popular. I'm not sure how these approval ratings get figured, and I can't really argue against them, but I've seen more people against bush than for him. Again, perhaps it's just my area. Even though my area is populated by blue collar, republican, borderline rednecks. (not that I'm saying all republicans are rednecks, just the ones in this area) Hell I wouldn't be surprized if the KKK has a chapter and meetin' hall 'round here.

In all seriousness, without malice, without conspiracy theory-slinging. How do these numbers get figured?

 

I'm looking for more recent ones and more examples, but as of February according to Gallup polls:

2/7/2003


Bush Approval Rating Holding Steady
Foreign affairs rating shows improvement

Despite building public confidence in his ability to deal with the Iraq situation, President Bush is coming out of his State of the Union address with the same overall job approval rating he had going in: 61% compared with 60%. The public continues to have an overall favorable view of the president and to give him high marks for his handling of the terrorism issue. What is most likely putting a damper on his ratings is the economy, to which a growing number of Americans say he is not devoting enough attention. His approval rating on the economy is 10 points lower than his rating on foreign affairs, and 14 points below his overall approval rating.

I can't log on to the NY Times, since i'm not a subscriber, but i've heard that a poll there showed 71% support for the war, but they didn't print the result in the newspaper because of their political agenda.

Another set of polls in March:

The Ipsos/CPR poll records Bush’s approval rating at 51 percent, though Gallup has it higher, at 57 percent and 58 percent in the two polls cited above.

These are only ok, but still a majority support him.
Finally, the coup de grace, (i think i used this right, but as Stormy says in Sealab 2021, "It's french... its crap.")

In a Newsweek poll:

March 29 â€â€￾ As the war in Iraq enters its second week, President George W. Bush’s approval rating rose to 68 percentâ€â€￾a 15-percent increase from two weeks ago, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Though he lags behind his father’s rating during the first Gulf Warâ€â€￾the elder Bush enjoyed an 86 percent approval rating one week into the Persian Gulf Warâ€â€￾Bush’s numbers are his highest in more than six months.

 

Unless there's dates missing, those are all after 9-11. In that case, it does not disprove my theory. Hmm...the cold war's over, we need something to occupy the public with. Let an attack happen. Create an enemy. Start a war. Approval ratings get a nice boost, while it distracts the public from the underhand bills getting passed, and keeps their mind off that travesty of an election. I really hope that's not the case, but I haven't seen a whole helluva lot to dissuade me.

 

You can't say that he is an unpopular president. That is my point. I didn't look for approval ratings before 9-11, but you are more than welcome to find them yourself.

Your belief that Bush is "wagging the dog" is BS however, and just reveals your cynicism towards government in general. No one would send troops into combat for no reason, and Iraq has been a reason for action for 12 years. Even if you don't believe that the Iraqi war is justified, it is truly poor that your vision of all politicians is so distorted that you think that Bush doesn't care about men's lives, and just cares about staying elected. There is no proof for your accusation, and it is just damaging to Bush and to America. Whether you like him or not, America elected him to do what he thought was right for America. This is how republics work.

You can disagree with his decisions, but maligning our leaders and our country helps no one but the enemy propaganda machine.

 

Reveal? I wasn't aware that my cynicism was hidden or a secret. I am cynical of every human being in the world. Particularly those who seek power.

Fair enough. I allready said that I didn't know where the numbers came from, and was basing the statement only on what I've heard from the people around me.

Malign government? Yes. Criticize bush, and don't believe half of what he says. Yes. Bush is not America, he is a politician. Malign our country. No. Fuck no! Open your ears and eyes. I've allready made my view in that area quite clear.

Again, the point is missed. I criticize because I know what government is capable of. I know what human beings are capable of. Read my signature. "Absolute Power corrupts absolutely."

Of course I don't have any proof. I don't want to be right about any of the things I fear. My motives are only to bring to light possibilties, and make people give thought to the representatives they support. Not blind faith. My arguments are against following blindly, ANY leader. My arguments are in the interest of preventing the things I've mentioned from coming to pass.

Ahh..the 'enemy propaganda machine'. Tell me, who's the enemy this week?

Let's eat some american fries and talk about propaganda. Let's kiss some babies and give away some walking around money, and talk about propaganda. Let's ruminate on the cold war and talk about propaganda. Let's chat on the McCarthy era and talk about propaganda. Let's villefy Native Americans and talk about propaganda. Let's blame everything on 911 and beat it into the public's head just how horrendous it was(just in case they forgot) and talk about propaganda. Let's talk about going to war in the name of 9-11, only of course, to dismantle the al qaida and capture osama bin laden. Who, ironically, still hasn't been captured. Let's talk about propaganda.

And lastly, let's talk about Gulf War v. 1.0, and the 250,000 Iraqi troops supoosedly built up, and the satelite pictures that show nothing but empty desert. You know that article Jinxed posted, that I can only assume no one but me read, since I'm the only one who made comment. No one even commented to say it was BS. Let's talk about propaganda.

Yes, I'm a cynic. Now how do you suppose I got that way?

 

Capturing Bin Laden personally was about as important as capturing or killing Hitler in 1945- good for propaganda purposes, but not crucial for the campaign as a whole. The Americans in Afghanistan did in a short time what the Russians failed to do during decades of their invasion- full undisputed control, the Taliban destroyed, the terrorist training structure smashed. The question is whether the US will be capable of establishing the same degree of control over Iraq.
By the way, if anyone's interested, I had another piece written, about the developments in Europe triggered by this whole Iraqi thing. Should I post it?

 

Any chance that I can get the condensed version of this thread? I gave up trying to make sense of those huge blocks of text sometime last week.
*farts*

 

One side: angry liberals and cynics who believe the government is grabbing power, becoming a totalitarian regime, and manufacturing a war to kick up the poll numbers. Plus: Decrying the war in Iraq

My side: Defending America and my president from attacks without and within. Plus: justifying the war in Iraq.


This is vastly simplified, and leaves out hours of decent, rational debate which is well worth looking into. (Except, again, the strange belief that the USA is becoming a totalitarian state. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and war and terrorism merit stricter laws, and propoganda is around us always, its not any worse now really. Just a different bias than usually.)

 

"angry liberals and cynics who believe"

Man, you really don't listen do you?

~shakes head~try reading more than one or two lines of my posts huh?

 

Keep in mind, "a cynic is what a idealist call a realist."

 

Well said, Qilikatal.

Yes, please do. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

So then the reasons for being there were not to capture bin laden and/or the people responsible for the 911 attacks? Then I think it's safe to say that the people of the US have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

I can't argue that. I, for one, was pretty impressed by that fact. Now if only we hadn't been lied to, and the people responsible for those crimes against humanity were brought to justice. Now if only the US would make good on its promise of rebuilding Afghanistan.

Exactly my point. When propaganda is constantly crammed down people's throats, how long before they become indoctrinated, and start believeing it? It worked for hitler. It worked for the church. It worked for the USSR, the Viet Cong, and NVA, and any of a dozen Arabic countries.