Why are we at war with Libya

[M.Dancer]

You do realize that peacekeeping missions occur AFTER conflicts are over. They also need permission of the host country. Peacekeeping is great, but Western countries almost never get involved in "hot" conflicts & put their butt on the line for "humanitarian" reasons.

Most conflicts don't happen 30 minutes from numerous major air force bases...again, if because we can't intervene in all of them, we shouldn't intervene in any of them?

And for the record, how much oil does Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo produce? How about Somalia?

[bloodyminded]

Interesting, Hermann Goering is your prophet?

Of course Molly has no admiration for Goering; or for somewhat less scary propagandists, for that matter.

It's odd that when someone points out a fact like that the West makes great use of propaganda, exactly in Goering's formulation....the person who reports this is accused of liking Goering!

Why blame the messenger?

And--as a related issue--are you aware that deceptive propaganda as we know it was developed and perfected by the Americans and the British, in the early 20th century?

A lot of people don't know this: they think propaganda is what the Soviets did, or the Nazis (WW2 is when propaganda became a dirty word---it was perfectly acceptable before that).

In other words, "propaganda" is what is done by our enemies; not by the cultures who perfected it and use it most effectively.

Our own.

If you read up on Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, well, let's just say it's enlightening, and quite astonishing. And if we had a serious education system, all of us would already know about our institutionalized propaganda, which is used against us everyday: both to sell us Axe Body Wash and to sell us military interventions.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

A lot of people don't know this...blah, blah, blah, I'm special.

In other words, "propaganda" is what is done by our enemies; not by the cultures who perfected it and use it most effectively.

Daddy...what did YOU do during the Great War?

[bloodyminded]

Daddy...what did YOU do during the Great War?

If you're unable or unwilling to argue any of the points offered, why bother? You refuse to respond to any actual ideas or arguments.

Why?

[Saipan]

If you're unable or unwilling to argue any of the points offered, why bother? You refuse to respond to any actual ideas or arguments.

Why?

Veery funny coming from you

[bloodyminded]

Veery funny coming from you

1. I post an argument.

2. DogonPorch asks me what I did in the Great War. (I wasn't born, which evidently is a terrible character flaw.)

3. you refuse to address the argument that I made...instead, pretending that I'm unwilling to offer arguments.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

1. I post an argument.

Belittling others is not an argument.

3. you refuse to address the argument that I made...

I did. But I won't join in name calling match. I'd lose.

[bloodyminded]

Belittling others is not an argument.

I did. But I won't join in name calling match. I'd lose.

Saipan: you are being amazingly dishonest.

Here is my "belittling" and "name-calling" post under discussion, unedited:

Of course Molly has no admiration for Goering; or for somewhat less scary propagandists, for that matter.

It's odd that when someone points out a fact like that the West makes great use of propaganda, exactly in Goering's formulation....the person who reports this is accused of liking Goering!

Why blame the messenger?

And--as a related issue--are you aware that deceptive propaganda as we know it was developed and perfected by the Americans and the British, in the early 20th century?

A lot of people don't know this: they think propaganda is what the Soviets did, or the Nazis (WW2 is when propaganda became a dirty word---it was perfectly acceptable before that).

In other words, "propaganda" is what is done by our enemies; not by the cultures who perfected it and use it most effectively.

Our own.

If you read up on Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, well, let's just say it's enlightening, and quite astonishing. And if we had a serious education system, all of us would already know about our institutionalized propaganda, which is used against us everyday: both to sell us Axe Body Wash and to sell us military interventions.

Where is the name-calling? The belittling?

[Saipan]

Saipan: you are being amazingly dishonest.

Where is the name-calling? The belittling?

That's IT.

[DogOnPorch]

That's IT.

Tiresome...n'est pas? Remember: shed a tear for East Timor...it's all YOUR fault, afterall.

[Wilber]

Of course Molly has no admiration for Goering; or for somewhat less scary propagandists, for that matter.

It's odd that when someone points out a fact like that the West makes great use of propaganda, exactly in Goering's formulation....the person who reports this is accused of liking Goering!

Why blame the messenger?

And--as a related issue--are you aware that deceptive propaganda as we know it was developed and perfected by the Americans and the British, in the early 20th century?

A lot of people don't know this: they think propaganda is what the Soviets did, or the Nazis (WW2 is when propaganda became a dirty word---it was perfectly acceptable before that).

In other words, "propaganda" is what is done by our enemies; not by the cultures who perfected it and use it most effectively.

Our own.

If you read up on Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, well, let's just say it's enlightening, and quite astonishing. And if we had a serious education system, all of us would already know about our institutionalized propaganda, which is used against us everyday: both to sell us Axe Body Wash and to sell us military interventions.

Never said she liked Goering or that our governments don't use propaganda our we shouldn't question information given to us by our governments. I really do question who's propaganda some on this forum chose to believe over others.

Propaganda is a part of life and all governments, political parties and companies try and use it but it can only really be successful in the manner Goering describes in states that have total control of the media. In todays world of instant news, internet and social media, that is no longer possible in free countries and becoming increasingly more difficult in totalitarian countries. When it comes to media control, which country is most like NAZI Germany and the Soviet Union? Gaddafi's Libya or the NATO countries?

[bloodyminded]

That's IT.

No, Saipan. You and I were both referring to the longer post I just highlighted. That was our subject of discussion.

You said you wouldn't respond to it because of the "belittling" and "name-calling" present there.

If you can't follow my arguments, ok; but can you not even follow your own?

[bloodyminded]

Tiresome...n'est pas? Remember: shed a tear for East Timor...it's all YOUR fault, afterall.

Still unable to respond, I see.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Never said she liked Goering or that our governments don't use propaganda our we shouldn't question information given to us by our governments. I really do question who's propaganda some on this forum chose to believe over others.

Got any concrete examples of what you mean?

Propaganda is a part of life and all governments, political parties and companies try and use it but it can only really be successful in the manner Goering describes in states that have total control of the media. In todays world of instant news, internet and social media, that is no longer possible in free countries and becoming increasingly more difficult in totalitarian countries.

As Goering rather simplistically describes it, that's true. But the beauty of Western propaganda is that the freedom of the press makes deception more believable. Your average Soviet citizen knew, for sure, that they were being delivered propaganda at all times, and that different views were actively concealed from them.

Here, competing information is freely available. But plenty of people still believe in state propaganda. In terms of the general public, it's impossible to suss out how effective it is (and it's a complex matter, just as you say); but the very fact of the freedom helps make the case. I can explain this:

Look at the run-up to the Iraq War. There were two, quite distinct types of "dissent" in that case: there were the people who felt it would be very bad....for Western interests generally, and US interests specifically; and there were people who fundamentally opposed it on more principled, less "realpolitik" grounds.

The latter comprised, as far as we can tell from extensive worldwide polling, the overwhelming global majority.

And yet all the media debates (and when I say "all" I'm scarcely exaggerating) involved the "not good for us" camp versus the hawks. This is limiting the actual debate beyond all recognition. It's a perversion, in fact.

If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and find me, say, five truly anti-war voices (who were representative of most of the world, remember)...that's five out of, literally, many hundreds of available pre-war televised and newspaper debates, in the most debated war in history.

To clarify, I'm talking major, mainstream media here.

Now, yes, your point went well beyond this, which I recognize and appreciate.

But my point is that virtually all support and defense of the Iraq war (to use the same example) perfectly echoes the mainstream media's very careful, elite parameters of the only "proper" modes of sober "Debate": good for us, or bad for us. Other considerations (say, human beings elsewhere) were trivial matters by the predictable "loony left"...in this case, most of the Earth.

When it comes to media control, which country is most like NAZI Germany and the Soviet Union? Gaddafi's Libya or the NATO countries?

I'm not talking of media control, but of Western propaganda. Western propaganda is not about media control. It's about drawing delineations, so that "rational" media figures, pundits and commentators can talk about it in the "correct" ways.

Hell, further buttressing my respect for you that you're willing to have this discussion at all, is that a few posters here mock the subject itself as "obviously" unworthy of sober consideration...since propaganda is, plainly, not an issue for intelligent and educated Westerners. That's what's broadly known as "common sense."

(They do allow that some entity called "the Left" has been deeply propagandized...but the "theory" stops there, for obvious reasons, notably an ill-considered premise at odds with the rest of their worldview about the West.)

Further, there are in fact instances of outright, Soviet-style propaganda, and vanishingly few people seem to know about them. It's not the normal propaganda method here, but it is sometimes used:

Yet again referring to the run-up to the Iraq War, all the tv networks repeatedly interviewed retired military men, usually generals, who were presented as "independent analysts" making their considered case for war.

The internet comes into play here, because media are interconnected, and these interview talking-points have been repeated endlessly on hundreds of thousands of sites like this one. (They're still repeated to this day.)

But these men weren't "independent analysts"...that was a direct and unequivocal lie. They were briefed at the Pentagon, pre-interview, prepared by expert PR agents in service of the State. The US government officials referred to them as "message force multipliers" (a rather Orwellian term, appropriately enough). They were also called "surrogates."

The idea was to promote the administraiton's case for war, but in the guise of personal and independent opinion...by decorated and respected military "experts" and "analysts."

But they weren't "analysts"...they were Commissars. Period.

(Although, complicating the matter further, in a bad way, is that many of these analysts also had personal business stakes which would be improved by the very war they were cheerleading...a matter that similarly remained undisclosed.)

This is explicitly deceptive government propaganda, using major media as a tool, wittingly or otherwise. (We don't know which, since the media outlets in question: FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC--all have remained sedulously silent on the matter.)

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

It was them saying, We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you, Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. This was a coherent, active policy, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

No, Saipan. You and I were both referring to the longer post I just highlighted.

You may have, I didn't. I refered to bellitling in number of previous posts.

If you can't follow my arguments, ok; but can you not even follow your own?

That is what I meant - again.

[bloodyminded]

You may have, I didn't. I refered to bellitling in number of previous posts.

Right...like my constant insulting you about being a "liberal hoplophobe," or informing you that "liberals" like criminals, and don't mind corruption, and so on...oh, wait....

At any rate, your point here is demonstrably untrue--you are proving it untrue, all by yourself. If you were sincere about it, you wouldn't be responding to me now, would you?

So your point is that you won't respond to my argument because I might belittle and name-call...but you continue to respond to everything else I'm posting.

?????

You sure you wanna go with that "argument"? It's not a very compelling one.

What's the real reason, Saipan?

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Propaganda is a part of life and all governments, political parties and companies try and use it but it can only really be successful in the manner Goering describes in states that have total control of the media. In todays world of instant news, internet and social media, that is no longer possible in free countries and becoming increasingly more difficult in totalitarian countries.....

Agreed, as this is one of the catalysts to current unrest in restricted countries. It is not only "propaganda" when a competing political view is expressed and supported, but also when one's own views are similarly propagated. In the case of the Iraq Wars (either one will do), there were competing groups and interests vying for public opinion and media bandwidth.....from unplugged baby incubators on one side to Scott Ritter on the other.

If your side wages but loses the "propaganda" war, don't complain about propaganda.

[M.Dancer]

I other news..Canadian Air Force Jets bomb a peaceful ammo dump. Bomb sight video at 11

[bloodyminded]

Agreed, as this is one of the catalysts to current unrest in restricted countries. It is not only "propaganda" when a competing political view is expressed and supported, but also when one's own views are similarly propagated. In the case of the Iraq Wars (either one will do), there were competing groups and interests vying for public opinion and media bandwidth.....from unplugged baby incubators on one side to Scott Ritter on the other.

If your side wages but loses the "propaganda" war, don't complain about propaganda.

All "propaganda" is not equal.

And it's not merely about "competing political views."

[Wilber]

Got any concrete examples of what you mean?

William Ashley on just about anything for one but there are several folks who regularly post links to tin foil hat blogs or websites citing them as "proof" of this or that.

As Goering rather simplistically describes it, that's true. But the beauty of Western propaganda is that the freedom of the press makes deception more believable. Your average Soviet citizen knew, for sure, that they were being delivered propaganda at all times, and that different views were actively concealed from them.

So the average Soviet citizen was more savy because he was kept ignorant. Gotcha.

If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and find me, say, five truly anti-war voices (who were representative of most of the world, remember)...that's five out of, literally, many hundreds of available pre-war televised and newspaper debates, in the most debated war in history.

To clarify, I'm talking major, mainstream media here.

If you say it was the most debated war in history there obviously must have been a strong anti war position otherwise there could be no debate.

I'm not talking of media control, but of Western propaganda. Western propaganda is not about media control. It's about drawing delineations, so that "rational" media figures, pundits and commentators can talk about it in the "correct" ways.

Hell, further buttressing my respect for you that you're willing to have this discussion at all, is that a few posters here mock the subject itself as "obviously" unworthy of sober consideration...since propaganda is, plainly, not an issue for intelligent and educated Westerners. That's what's broadly known as "common sense."

You are talking about media manipulation and of course different interests will try to manipulate the media. Not just governments but every other kind of interest.

[bush_cheney2004]

All "propaganda" is not equal.

And it's not merely about "competing political views."

Of course it is...there are those who have power and those who want it. Surely the "propaganda" of GlobalResearch.ca isn't any holier than the Fraser Institute's (trying to keep the obsession with American media at bay). But I know that's hard around here, so that would also include MoveOn.org.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

William Ashley on just about anything for one but there are several folks who regularly post links to tin foil hat blogs or websites citing them as "proof" of this or that.

Oh, sure, but this has nothing to do with ideological or political position.

So the average Soviet citizen was more savy because he was kept ignorant. Gotcha.

No, but he was arguably more savvy that he was kept ignorant.

If you say it was the most debated war in history there obviously must have been a strong anti war position otherwise there could be no debate.

First of all, this retort is proof positive that you either didn't read my post, or didn't understand it.

At any rate, there was strong anti-war position. The majority of people, at least as far as anyone can tell, were opposed to the war.

But in the mediasphere of Public Debate, the paramaters were narrow, and (predictably) in favour of Establishment interests and calcified opinion. The war was hotly opposed in this sphere, yes...because the opposers thought it might be bad for the United States (and perhaps for other enlightened Western arenas).

Not because it might be fundamentally wrong to attack the Iraqis. Scarcely a consideration among "serious" commentators.

Again, prove me wrong, if you believe I'm wrong.

You are talking about media manipulation and of course different interests will try to manipulate the media. Not just governments but every other kind of interest.

Yes....but the subject of this very discussion was government propaganda.

???

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....If you say it was the most debated war in history there obviously must have been a strong anti war position otherwise there could be no debate...

Touche....the run up to war was very much debated very vigorously from many angles. Confusing the discourse with the eventual outcome is a common mistake.

[bloodyminded]

Of course it is...there are those who have power and those who want it.

Fortunately, no.

Surely the "propaganda" of GlobalResearch.ca isn't any holier than the Fraser Institute's (trying to keep the obsession with American media at bay). But I know that's hard around here, so that would also include MoveOn.org.

Why do you pretend to see everything as equal and opposite? That's absurd...even on a base mathematical level, life simply doesn't work that way.

Heck, you don't actually think this way...or else you'd be arguing that my summoning of the Propaganda Theory was just as valid as your refutation of it. And yet you think I'm wrong.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Touche....the run up to war was very much debated very vigorously from many angles. Confusing the discourse with the eventual outcome is a common mistake.

Only two fundamental angles--within the major mainstream media (the only argument I made on this point...you missed it, relying on other posters' responses rather than my intiial remarks): the war is good...or the war is a bad idea (for the US). That's it.

Show me five deviations out of the (literally) hundreds of debates.