Israel Is Doing The Classic Reverse.

[Oleg Bach]

You hear over and over again how the Arab world and that little prison camp called Palistine wants to push Israel in the sea, literally advocating whipping the little nation off the face of the earth. It came to mind that Palistine MAY talk about pushing Israel off the face of the earth..and that it is propogated that poor little Israel is under threat though mere words and endless negative rhetoricals...BUT the reality is that Israel IS pushing Palistine off the map, physically doing it..with a long term agenda of eventually accomplishing this task. So Palistine talks about it and Israel actually does it - and that my friends is why you hire a "good Jewish lawyer" - so he can reverse reality and make the guilty look innocent the the innocent guilty. We use to call these types of actions the "typical liberal reverse" ---- where the nasty bastard cleverly creates a villianization of the good guy and institues the idea that the bad guy is good.

[BC_chick]

Same thing happened with Iraq and Afghanistan - those who were screaming the loudest about Muslims wanting to force their lifestyle on the West were the same ones who also believed that it's perfectly within the rights of the West to shock and awe a couple of Middle-Eastern countries into adopting a secular democratic government.

[bush_cheney2004]

Same thing happened with Iraq and Afghanistan - those who were screaming the loudest about Muslims wanting to force their lifestyle on the West were the same ones who also believed that it's perfectly within the rights of the West to shock and awe a couple of Middle-Eastern countries into adopting a secular democratic government.

Yes...the same "double standard" applied to Germany, Italy, and Japan during WW2. It's just not fair!

[BC_chick]

I'm talking about propaganda and accusing your enemy of the very thing you're doing yourself.

Who said anything about fair?

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm talking about propaganda and accusing your enemy of the very thing you're doing yourself.

Who said anything about fair?

Exactly my point....Google "Internment Camps". Propaganda is a universal tool without "moral" allegiance to anything.

[BC_chick]

Oh no, I'm certainly not one to think Israel or the US were the geniuses who came up with the idea of propaganda, heck no.

It's just that the bombs have evolved, the strategies have evolved... yet someone missed the memo about the information age making it near-impossible to run an efficient propaganda campaign with modern technology.

Even Vietnam was pushing it. And that was just TV which had a lot more regulation than the internet.

[bush_cheney2004]

.It's just that the bombs have evolved, the strategies have evolved... yet someone missed the memo about the information age making it near-impossible to run an efficient propaganda campaign with modern technology....

Doesn't really matter...propaganda still works because of context.

Hence, "with us...or with the terrorists".....or "H1N1 risk groups". Still works as before.

[BC_chick]

You're completely entitled to opinion, though I will humbly disagree. IMO, there is a direct and linear correlation between the amount of information that is available to the public and the (lack of) support for a war.

I brought up Vietnam earlier... compare that to WWI, WWII, vs. Iraq. You'll see a steady decline with the amount of information that is available. Before TV, there was almost complete support for almost all wars. By the time TV was completely proliferated in every household (Vietnam), dissent had started. By the time internet came around, support was pretty much 50/50.

You'll also note that in present day totalitarian regimes where information is limited, nationalism is still prevalent.

Sure, there will always be people who buy into any type of violence if you make it an 'us' vs. 'them'... but the more information people have available to them, the more the independent thinkers can say 'nah, I don't buy it, you say this, but with my own eyes I see something else.'

[bush_cheney2004]

...I brought up Vietnam earlier... compare that to WWI, WWII, vs. Iraq. You'll see a steady decline with the amount of information that is available. Before TV, there was almost complete support for almost all wars. By the time TV was completely proliferated in every household (Vietnam), dissent had started. By the time internet came around, support was pretty much 50/50.

I don't agree at all...depends on the war and context. Most Americans DID NOT support wars for Europe until "provoked", while Kosovo was a relatively easy sell for Clinton (post TV). Ditto Gulf War I and Iraq.

You'll also note that in present day totalitarian regimes where information is limited, nationalism is still prevalent.

Nationalism can also be found in democratic countries.

Sure, there will always be people who buy into any type of violence if you make it an 'us' vs. 'them'... but the more information people have available to them, the more the independent thinkers can say 'nah, I don't buy it, you say this, but with my own eyes I see something else.'

What people say is far less important than what they (and their nations) do.

[BC_chick]

I don't want to call them 'just' wars vs. 'unjust' because those are both subjective terms, how about we use 'popular' vs. 'unpopular'?

Our debate here is about propaganda and how effective it is during the information age. You brought up the Nazis... one would think that invading countries unprovoked while simultaneously killing off hordes of Germany's own citizens would be an 'unpopular' choice of war. Hence, the Nazis needed propaganda to convince the masses. They blocked access to independent information and repeated misinformation until they got enough support.

OTOH, Clinton didn't have to resort to propaganda because he didn't need to sell the wars to the public. Kosovo wasn't an 'unpopular' war to begin with.

In other words, propaganda is only used when a war would be unpopular otherwise. And with the more access the public has to independent information, the less effective this tool for selling unpopular wars becomes.

Case in point, the support the Nazis ignited amongst their countrymen vs. the support GW mustered up amongst Americans. And W wasn't even trying to kill its own citizens, just a bunch of Arabs way over on the other side of the world.

As for what countries do vs. what their people want... sure, I never said otherwise. What does that have to do with propaganda losing its effectiveness with available information? Just because they do what they want anyways doesn't mean the people bought it (which is my point).

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't want to call them 'just' wars vs. 'unjust' because those are both subjective terms, how about we use 'popular' vs. 'unpopular'?

OK....the result will be the same.

Our debate here is about propaganda and how effective it is during the information age. You brought up the Nazis... one would think that invading countries unprovoked while simultaneously killing off hordes of Germany's own citizens would be an 'unpopular' choice of war. Hence, the Nazis needed propaganda to convince the masses. They blocked access to independent information and repeated misinformation until they got enough support.

No...I brought up the USA and Canada vis-a-vis internment camps. Propaganda is always "needed" to a certain degree.

OTOH, Clinton didn't have to resort to propaganda because he didn't need to sell the wars to the public. Kosovo wasn't an 'unpopular' war to begin with.

Clinton's speeches and propaganda were consistent with any that has gone before. Operation "Allied Force" was not a slam dunk and was actually a compromise to sending in ground troops, which was absolutely not supported. UNSC also voted no....as did US House.

In other words, propaganda is only used when a war would be unpopular otherwise. And with the more access the public has to independent information, the less effective this tool for selling unpopular wars becomes.

No...propaganda is always used regardless of war's popularity with varying degree. Success or failure is dependent on several factors, but correlates best to cost, longevity, and success in the war's campaign and defined objectives.

Case in point, the support the Nazis ignited amongst their countrymen vs. the support GW mustered up amongst Americans. And W wasn't even trying to kill its own citizens, just a bunch of Arabs way over on the other side of the world.

America has much more complex relationship with Arab countries than that. In the case of specific nations like Iraq or Iran, US policy (and wars) pre-date GWB's tenure by many years.

As for what countries do vs. what their people want... sure, I never said otherwise. What does that have to do with propaganda losing its effectiveness with available information? Just because they do what they want anyways doesn't mean the people bought it (which is my point).

Because whether they "buy it" or not is irrelevant when compared to actual actions and policies. Propaganda will always be part of any campaign, from many sides and sources. Just because the medium for communicating the propaganda has changed does not alter the basic dynamic. Disinformation is readily created as quickly as the "truth".

Edited November 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Gabriel]

Same thing happened with Iraq and Afghanistan - those who were screaming the loudest about Muslims wanting to force their lifestyle on the West were the same ones who also believed that it's perfectly within the rights of the West to shock and awe a couple of Middle-Eastern countries into adopting a secular democratic government.

Yes, yes... how ethnocentric we are to "force" our values of equality of all persons, freedom, democracy, protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, age, or sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc.

How imperialistic of us to force these clearly WESTERN values on another "civilization".

Reality check - our core values are UNIVERSAL, although you wish to portray them as being relative values.

LIVE FREE OR DIE.

[BC_chick]

Spare me, you sound like a 19th-century colonialist who was just 'helping' the poor little helpless brown and black people around the world by robbing them of their natural resources.

Oh, and Freedom is earned. Somehow I doubt any Western nation would've embraced freedom if it was forced on them through shock and awe by some external force.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Oleg Bach]

Don't want to get biblical on you but "You will judge them by the fruit they bare" Not what they say! When I watched shock and awe..the first attack on Baghdad..I was shocked at the fact that the world got to watch this as if it was some damned video game...Now there is a show out on the history channel - as if the Iraq thing is over and now the war warrants being called history - The new show is about American service guys riding around Iraq and a tune playing called "I'm so happy" - For God sake the Americans have turned a war that is still going on into a damned sit com.... In a nation that was just - Bush and Cheney and the rest of those pirates would be locked up for lieing and needlessly killing thousands of their owns and others...what is it about this that the world does not understand? I don't get it - how come evil people are running the show and no one has noticed? Is it just me?

[Gabriel]

Spare me, you sound like a 19th-century colonialist who was just 'helping' the poor little helpless brown and black people around the world by robbing them of their natural resources.

So are you actually going to directly address anything I said, or...? Do you dispute that our values of freedom and democracy are universal? Clearly you seem to be of the opinion that these values are contextual or relative. Address my point, and stop embarrassing yourself and dumbing down this thread with stupid implications that our military operations in Afghanistan are colonial or rooted in resource exploitation.

Oh, and Freedom is earned. Somehow I doubt any Western nation would've embraced freedom if it was forced on them through shock and awe by some external force.

The situations are completely different. Canada and America gained independence and freedom our own ways at our own times. How you can draw any parallels between the evolution of our political and social freedoms and the military and political objectives in Afghanistan is beyond me. Your arguments are of a grade-7 calibre. "What if they did it to us?" Are you serious? Is that the best you can come up with? Why don't you address my points - that your assertion that we are "imposing" freedom on Afghanistan is a stupid way to describe our endeavour. You don't "impose" freedom. Our way of life isn't anything we need to be hesitant to promote. We don't need to walk around on eggshells when condemning barbarism and savagery when we see it. Of course in your mind, though, human rights and freedoms are relative. It's ok if they throw acid into the faces of young girls trying to get a basic education. What business is it of ours to interfere? Who are we to say that such behaviour is sickening? How arrogant we are to think our way of life is superior. How arrogant we are to suggest that our core values are universal.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Try to address my posts directly rather than swerving into nonsensical tangents.

[BC_chick]

Clearly you're missing my point, I don't dispute that democracy and freedom are a universal right and want in people. Where I differ from you is that:

1) Freedom forced on a nation at the end of the barrel of a gun is not the same thing as fighting for that right from within.

2) Just like the colonialists of times gone by, the espoused magnanimity of the imperialist power is simply a veil, a cover, for their true intentions - which is to rob and pillage the land of its natural resources.

Edited November 24, 2009 by BC_chick

[GostHacked]

So are you actually going to directly address anything I said, or...? Do you dispute that our values of freedom and democracy are universal?

Since democracy is not universal, and freedom does not seem to be universal, i'd say BC_Chick is correct.

Clearly you seem to be of the opinion that these values are contextual or relative.[ Address my point, and stop embarrassing yourself and dumbing down this thread with stupid implications that our military operations in Afghanistan are colonial or rooted in resource exploitation.

The situations are completely different. Canada and America gained independence and freedom our own ways at our own times.

And they were violent every time. 1812.

How arrogant we are to suggest that our core values are universal.

Seems like you contradicted yourself. I know it was sarcasm directed at BC-Chick.

[Gabriel]

Clearly you're missing my point, I don't dispute that democracy and freedom are a universal right and want in people. Where I differ from you is that:

1) Freedom forced on a nation at the end of the barrel of a gun is not the same thing as fighting for that right from within.

2) Just like the colonialists of times gone by, the espoused magnanimity of the imperialist power is simply a veil, a cover, for their true intentions - which is to rob and pillage the land of its natural resources.

Finally, a leftist will admit that the values are universal and not relative. If they are universal, how can we stand by and allow them all to happen without intervention? ESPECIALLY when they threaten us? Are you implying that many of the Afghan people do not want liberation from tribal and terrorist rule? Do you really believe that we are imposing values that they wholeheartedly reject?

I have no idea why you're mentioning anything regarding colonialism, a wholly irrelevant subject. Btw, most colonial forces of years passed that I learned about didn't hide their intentions under any veil of liberty or freedom. They were very open about their intentions. Apparently you're just making things up on the fly. I'm unsure why you're pretending to know what a colonial PR message sounded like way back when. Still, colonialism is completely irrelevant to this issue.

GostHacked - I see democracy as a universal value. Clearly it isn't universally implemented, but it should be. Everyone should have a say in their government and have strong access to the political process. What's your point about the violent origins of freedom in Canada and the USA?

Edited November 24, 2009 by Gabriel

[BC_chick]

Finally, a leftist will admit that the values are universal and not relative. If they are universal, how can we stand by and allow them all to happen without intervention? ESPECIALLY when they threaten us? Are you implying that many of the Afghan people do not want liberation from tribal and terrorist rule? Do you really believe that we are imposing values that they wholeheartedly reject?

Err, not so fast, I said freedom and democracy is a right and want, but western-style democracy is not universal value. For example, people may want a system where they can vote, but within certain limits and conditions.

And you keep skipping over my point that freedom is something that comes from within, not forced from an external source. How much do you think America would've enjoyed its freedom if instead of fighting for it, Mexico shock and awed it away from England and then camped out making billions of dollars in profit? Would they be grateful for their liberators you think?

I have no idea why you're mentioning anything regarding colonialism, a wholly irrelevant subject. Btw, most colonial forces of years passed that I learned about didn't hide their intentions under any veil of liberty or freedom. They were very open about their intentions. Apparently you're just making things up on the fly. I'm unsure why you're pretending to know what a colonial PR message sounded like way back when. Still, colonialism is completely irrelevant to this issue.

The colonialists of Africa and India also espoused a notion of magnanimity that they're simply helping these poor wittle backward nations by making huge profits from them. And you're mistaken, they were not open about their intentions. To this day many older Brits and French believe they were only doing good in the countries where their countries formerly colonised.

You may also want to read some Victorian literature, that might help. The debate existed even then whether not the intention of their respective governments were noble or not. I'm certainly not the first person to say this or think of it.

[Gabriel]

Err, not so fast, I said freedom and democracy is a right and want, but western-style democracy is not universal value. For example, people may want a system where they can vote, but within certain limits and conditions.

And you keep skipping over my point that freedom is something that comes from within, not forced from an external source. How much do you think America would've enjoyed its freedom if instead of fighting for it, Mexico shock and awed it away from England and then camped out making billions of dollars in profit? Would they be grateful for their liberators you think?

When did I ever say "Western-style democracy"? I am well aware that democracy has many manifestations. It is a universal value, at the broad level. Whether or not you are aware of it, most people inherently want access to their political institutions. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. Perhaps you'd prefer an Ipsos-Reid or Gallup poll to believe this!

Why does freedom and democracy have to come from within? These are universal values, it doesn't matter how they are delivered. If someone helps you achieve emancipation from liberty, is this wrong because you didn't do it alone? Liberation is liberation. Following your line of reasoning, the Allies shouldn't have involved themselves in WWII. Are you opposed to the military and political objectives that we are working towards in Afghanistan? Are you opposed to the destruction of the Taliban and the installation of democratic institutions?

Why are you playing ridiculous what-if games with history? How the hell would Mexico have delivered independence to the USA from the British Empire? What the hell are you talking about? It's pure nonsense. How can I address this "point" of yours? You have no point, it isn't even worth addressing. How can you speculate towards something that never could have happened, let alone ever did happen? Pure nonsense.

The colonialists of Africa and India also espoused a notion of magnanimity that they're simply helping these poor wittle backward nations by making huge profits from them. And you're mistaken, they were not open about their intentions. To this day many older Brits and French believe they were only doing good in the countries where their countries formerly colonised.

I will no longer indulge your irrelevant perceptions of colonial history. Colonialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP of this thread. Have fun talking to yourself.

You may also want to read some Victorian literature, that might help. The debate existed even then whether not the intention of their respective governments were noble or not. I'm certainly not the first person to say this or think of it.

Again, completely irrelevant. Feel free to bring up the moon landing. Colonialism has nothing to do with the conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, or I/P.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Gabriel

[Bugs]

Don't want to get biblical on you but "You will judge them by the fruit they bare" Not what they say! When I watched shock and awe..the first attack on Baghdad..I was shocked at the fact that the world got to watch this as if it was some damned video game...Now there is a show out on the history channel - as if the Iraq thing is over and now the war warrants being called history - The new show is about American service guys riding around Iraq and a tune playing called "I'm so happy" - For God sake the Americans have turned a war that is still going on into a damned sit com.... In a nation that was just - Bush and Cheney and the rest of those pirates would be locked up for lieing and needlessly killing thousands of their owns and others...what is it about this that the world does not understand? I don't get it - how come evil people are running the show and no one has noticed? Is it just me?

I was shocked at how precisely the Americans could hit their targets, and by initiating attack on the Moslem sabbath, could take most of the state infrastructure out of the picture without barely an Iraqi casualty. It's quite a contast to Saddam-style rule, where he might gas a whole village to get half a dozen. The attacks were successful in initiating a process whereby the Iraqi Army's will to fight was destroyed. Compared to the way they fought the Iranians, they almost turned the country over to the Americans intact.

If you could curb your hostility to America, you could probably understand that this is a good thing.

It's not that the Americans have achieved perfection. Not by a long shot. It's more like they have crawled further out of the swamp than the contenders. You tick off the Americans for the 'video game' aspects of the attack, which is probably the least significant thing about it. What national style of conquoring would you prefer? Russian style involves a real subjugation of the people, including rape and loss of property.

The fact is, the American invasion of Iraq was undertaken, and Saddam toppled, in a manner contrived to disturb ordinary Iraqis as little as possible.

[bloodyminded]

I was shocked at how precisely the Americans could hit their targets, and by initiating attack on the Moslem sabbath, could take most of the state infrastructure out of the picture without barely an Iraqi casualty.

If by "barely an Iraqi casualty" you mean an insignificant few hundred thousand...then you'd be correct.

It's quite a contast to Saddam-style rule, where he might gas a whole village to get half a dozen.

I'm inclined to agree. And we're at a pretty pass when the proper comparison of behavior is to...Saddam Hussein.

The fact is, the American invasion of Iraq was undertaken, and Saddam toppled, in a manner contrived to disturb ordinary Iraqis as little as possible.

This is pure speculation. If you mean "it could have been done more violently" then of course you're right. That's hardly pat-on-the-back material, however.

To say we "disturb[ed] ordinary Iraqis as little as possible" (meaning hundreds of thousands dead, probably as many wounded, and four million refugees is not so terrible), you are stating, unequivocally, that the adventure COULD NOT have been done with less "disturbance." But you cannot know this.

It's simnple faith. And it's based on bland assertions of political and military leaders, meaning the assertions carry precisely zero innately objective information.

Edited December 20, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

To say we "disturb[ed] ordinary Iraqis as little as possible" (meaning hundreds of thousands dead, probably as many wounded, and four million refugees is not so terrible), you are stating, unequivocally, that the adventure COULD NOT have been done with less "disturbance." But you cannot know this.

One can't look at just the number of Iraqi civilian deaths and see a total picture. First of all, from what I've read, the U.S./allies account for only 37% of the deaths. But many died as a result of the U.N. sanctions before the war, so was that any better? Are the deaths resulting from the invasion any worse than the deaths due to the sanctions? But how many people would have died if the U.N. hadn't held Saddam in reign by the sanctions? Finally, isn't there a chance now that Saddam is out of power that things will improve in Iraq's future, something that wouldn't have been possible under Saddam?

I didn't, and don't, support the Iraq war, but I don't think we can simply look at the body count alone and draw conclusions.

As a side note, I read somewhere that people are much more concerned about deaths at the hands of the U.S. than they are about all the other deaths occurring in the world, and sometimes this seems to be true.

[bloodyminded]

One can't look at just the number of Iraqi civilian deaths and see a total picture. First of all, from what I've read, the U.S./allies account for only 37% of the deaths.

I'm surprised the percentage is that high, frankly.

But at any rate, I think there's a lot to be said for the Nuremberg principle on wars: to paraphrase, he who starts a war is responsible for the totality of horrors that accumulate as a result. And since the insurgency and terrorism were predicted by the war's opponents (so therefore predictable, by definition) I'd argue the US/UK coalition share responsibility for it. It's criminal negligence at best, and on a massive scale.

But many died as a result of the U.N. sanctions before the war, so was that any better? Are the deaths resulting from the invasion any worse than the deaths due to the sanctions? But how many people would have died if the U.N. hadn't held Saddam in reign by the sanctions? Finally, isn't there a chance now that Saddam is out of power that things will improve in Iraq's future, something that wouldn't have been possible under Saddam?

I agree these are all good questions, underlining the complexity of the situation.

As a side note, I read somewhere that people are much more concerned about deaths at the hands of the U.S. than they are about all the other deaths occurring in the world, and sometimes this seems to be true.

Sometimes this is the case, as the most powerful nation stands in a spotlight.

Personally, I think the US is co-conspirator, rather than rogue state. For example--leaving Iraq aside--my own country is usually involved with the US in major international conflicts. Some of the real hair-curling horrors (say, the little-known intentional, material and diplomatic support for the mass murder of the East Timorese by the Indonesians) was a multilateral crime. The US, sure, but also the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

So while I think the criticism more than valid (actually, UNDERstated in the E. Timor case), it makes no sense for me to hold the US responsible without indicting Canada in the same breath.

As I said before, when the US does something wrong, it has nothing to do with some flaw in the American character. It is an institutional matter of great power. If Canada were the Superpower, I see no reason to think we wouldn't behave the same way.

[Shady]

And since the insurgency and terrorism were predicted by the war's opponents (so therefore predictable, by definition) I'd argue the US/UK coalition share responsibility for it.

Well, I guess we can apply that principle to Arab's as well. Perhaps the results of the several wars initiated by them on Israel over the past 60 years has resulted in the situation they now find themselves in. And since Israel's behavior because of it was easily predictable, the Arab and Muslim countries involved, are ultimately responsible for the plight of the Palestinian's and the area as a whole.