Why are we at war with Libya

[Wilber]

No, it's probably better to assume the opposite.

But government deception is of a special kind. I don't elect representatives to blogs or to advertising agnecies.

When the government deceives us, it matters a lot. When the government deceives people into, say, a war, that's openly criminal (I mean by the laws of the land).

How is it deceiving you about Libya and why is it criminal? It was sanctioned by the UN. That's my point, you are trying to propagandize me.

[bloodyminded]

How is it deceiving you about Libya and why is it criminal? It was sanctioned by the UN. That's my point, you are trying to propagandize me.

No, you are, by changing the parameters of the discussion.

I wasn't talking about Libya. I used the Iraq War as my example (speaking to a larger tendency, but no claim was made to a universal one), and I offered evidence.

You were here during that part of the discussion, so you should know this.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wasn't talking about Libya. I used the Iraq War as my example (speaking to a larger tendency, but no claim was made to a universal one), and I offered evidence.

Bad example...Canada never went to war in Iraq. In fact, Canada declined for an altogether different reason...no UN resolution...and no capacity to do so.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Bad example...Canada never went to war in Iraq. In fact, Canada declined for an altogether different reason...no UN resolution...and no capacity to do so.

Since this is not relevant to my comments on the matter, it's not a bad example at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since this is not relevant to my comments on the matter, it's not a bad example at all.

I agree...the war in Iraq is irrelevant to your comment and war propaganda in Canada.

[bloodyminded]

I agree...the war in Iraq is irrelevant to your comment and war propaganda in Canada.

My comment was on war propaganda generally, and with the Iraq War example used to underline my argument.

I understand that after many days go by, topics are easily forgotten.

But that remains the fault of those who forget. You and Wilber might have committed to the radical approach of scrolling back.

[bush_cheney2004]

My comment was on war propaganda generally, and with the Iraq War example used to underline my argument.

I understand that after many days go by, topics are easily forgotten.

Not forgotten...your argument failed, because it was one-sided. Propaganda does not play favorites, not even for a war.

[bloodyminded]

Not forgotten...your argument failed, because it was one-sided.

Not at all. My topic was government propaganda...not every single stated notion from every conceivably interested party as it might or might not be deemd "propaganda."

But yes...forgotten, definitely, hence your wayward response above.

Propaganda does not play favorites, not even for a war.

Okay.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Not at all. My topic was government propaganda...not every single stated notion from every conceivably interested party as it might or might not be deemd "propaganda."

Oh, so you really could be more balanced by including multiculturalism, fluoridated water, or latex condoms but the Iraq War, which Canada did not participate in, is just your favorite thing when it comes to "government propaganda"?

[bloodyminded]

Oh, so you really could be more balanced by including multiculturalism, fluoridated water, or latex condoms but the Iraq War, which Canada did not participate in, is just your favorite thing when it comes to "government propaganda"?

It was a prime example, involving more-than-usually outright deception, with the witting or unwitting aid of major news media, not to mention the military fetishists who implicitly trust Generals, to sell a controversial war.

Just a really good example, that's all.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

It was a prime example, involving more-than-usually outright deception, with the witting or unwitting aid of major news media, not to mention the military fetishists who implicitly trust Generals, to sell a controversial war.

Yes, we understand your bias on this as well, but ultimately...Canada did not go. The propaganda failed! So how good (prime) was it?

Edited March 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Yes, we understand you bias on this as well,

That's not so clear. I could have tackled the "multicultural" propaganda, and left you wondering why I didn't focus on something more obvious and tangible....like the Iraq War, for example!

Using one of the more obvious examples has...an obvious motivation. Not "bias"...but clarity.

but ultimately...Canada did not go. The propaganda failed! So how good (prime) was it?

I wasn't talking about effects of propaganda, which are difficult to measure, but rather intent.

[Wilber]

A

No, you are, by changing the parameters of the discussion.

I wasn't talking about Libya. I used the Iraqq War as my example (speaking to a larger tendency, but no claim was made to a universal one), and I offered evidence.

You were here during that part of the discussion, so you should know this.

I must have misread the title of the thread.

[bloodyminded]

A

I must have misread the title of the thread.

Are you pretending that you were not personally involved in the propaganda and Iraq discussion we were having? Or is this a remark about "thread drift," which of course begs the question of why you discussed the tangential matters with me at all? (And which makes you perfectly culpable, of course.)

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not so clear. I could have tackled the "multicultural" propaganda, and left you wondering why I didn't focus on something more obvious and tangible....like the Iraq War, for example!

Either way...your focus on the Iraq example is motivated by an agenda...not an exercise in the general efficacy of "government propaganda". Canada at "war" with Libya is just more of the same with a UN stamp of approval, same as in Gulf War I.

[Wilber]

Are you pretending that you were not personally involved in the propaganda and Iraq discussion we were having? Or is this a remark about "thread drift," which of course begs the question of why you discussed the tangential matters with me at all? (And which makes you perfectly culpable, of course.)

I didn't change the subject to Iraq but if you are so concerned about government and political propagada, wht do you think elections , are?

[GostHacked]

I didn't change the subject to Iraq but if you are so concerned about government and political propagada, wht do you think elections , are?

They say anything to get your vote. But I guess there are a lot of stupid people who have not caught on to this yet.

[bloodyminded]

Either way...your focus on the Iraq example is motivated by an agenda.

Ah, yes...my "hatred for America," as the saying goes (or its slightly more tepid sister, "Blame America first"); or perhaps some misguided radicalism-for-its-own sake I picked up back in university (when I was a conservative). Anything's possible, but I don't find the amateur pschologizing particularly compelling to explain my "agenda."

(Maybe I'm only telling the truth as best as I can discover it? But no, that's crazy talk. "Agenda" sounds better.)

..not an exercise in the general efficacy of "government propaganda".

I hold no strong opinion on the general efficacy of government propaganda; only that it exists.

Canada at "war" with Libya is just more of the same with a UN stamp of approval, same as in Gulf War I.

And if I discover outright, Soviet-style propaganda attempts, aided by major news media, and designed specifically to mislead the public into supporting the war...then I will certainly post it.

[bloodyminded]

I didn't change the subject to Iraq

But you joined the discussion.

but if you are so concerned about government and political propagada, wht do you think elections , are?

???

If you don't think the government using deceptive propaganda is an issue, then of course that's your prerogative.

And if you think foreign policy propaganda, up to and including attempts to deceive the public into war, is precisely equivalent to election propaganda (or the propaganda by "environmentalists" ), then we simply disagree.

[Shwa]

Ah, yes...my "hatred for America," as the saying goes (or its slightly more tepid sister, "Blame America first"); or perhaps some misguided radicalism-for-its-own sake I picked up back in university (when I was a conservative). Anything's possible, but I don't find the amateur pschologizing particularly compelling to explain my "agenda."

(Maybe I'm only telling the truth as best as I can discover it? But no, that's crazy talk. "Agenda" sounds better.)

What the hell is your agenda anyways? I mean the word sounds seductively powerful, a tie into secret world of backroom power brokers. Is your agenda busty women?? But really, it is so overused nowadays and applying it to a single poster on the Internet is, well, no offence BM, but not very impressive.

I think it would sound cooler and more impressive if 'novel' or 'book' were used instead. Like this:

"Either way...your focus on the Iraq example is motivated by your book sales."

"Either way...your focus on the Iraq example is motivated by that Iraq War novel you have written."

Or how about something a little less specific to paper?

"Either way...your focus on the Iraq example is motivated by your recent movie." (or "compelling indie documentary" which is a bagful of cred right there)

I think you need a PR overhaul if all you got is an agenda.

But I do like 'radicalism-for-its-own-sake' though. Sounds kinda like mid-70's punk deconstruction and not Armani suit-like agenda bearing at all.

[Wilber]

If you don't think the government using deceptive propaganda is an issue, then of course that's your prerogative.

And if you think foreign policy propaganda, up to and including attempts to deceive the public into war, is precisely equivalent to election propaganda (or the propaganda by "environmentalists" ), then we simply disagree.

It's an issue that has existed forever, everywhere and will never go away. Deal with it as best you can but you are dreaming if you think it will ever go away.

Propaganda is about getting others to see things your way. Yes it is the equivalent. If you don't think so, you are just saying you accept different degrees of miss information based on your own particular bias.

[bloodyminded]

What the hell is your agenda anyways? I mean the word sounds seductively powerful, a tie into secret world of backroom power brokers. Is your agenda busty women??

Well, women generally. I am not at all picky about breast size. Simply not an important aspect of moving my agenda forward.

But I do like 'radicalism-for-its-own-sake' though. Sounds kinda like mid-70's punk deconstruction and not Armani suit-like agenda bearing at all.

That's it! I'm gonna do the Sex Pistols without Malcolm MacLaren.

At least I'll get to keep that street cred you mentioned. Even if nobody else is aware of it.

[Jack Weber]

Well, women generally. I am not at all picky about breast size. Simply not an important aspect of moving my agenda forward.

That's it! I'm gonna do the Sex Pistols without Malcolm MacLaren.

At least I'll get to keep that street cred you mentioned. Even if nobody else is aware of it.

That type of streeet cred is 30+ years out of date....

[bloodyminded]

It's an issue that has existed forever, everywhere and will never go away. Deal with it as best you can but you are dreaming if you think it will ever go away.

Do you have any stated opinions on matters that you believe will remain as issues into the future?

Yes?

Then why are you admonishing me for what you personally do as well? And what every poster here, without exception, also (necessarily) does?

Propaganda is about getting others to see things your way. Yes it is the equivalent.

Don't be ridiculous. I can scarcely imagine a more cringingly servile and obedient-to-Power response.

You think a newspaper reporting on the government's deception in the drive to war--and which also reports on the complicity of the news media itself--is equivalent "propaganda" to the government's deceptions in this matter?

This is a serious question; can you give me a serious answer? That is, can you explain exactly how this is so, without wandering off into vague generalities about contested information?

You think all "propaganda" in one sense of the word is precisely the same as all "propaganda" in the negative sense we have come to associate with it?

You are stating that all points of view are equal and opposite elements of precisely the same thing.

And I don't believe that's your opinion at all. I think you've just dropped the ball here.

If you don't think so, you are just saying you accept different degrees of miss information based on your own particular bias.

Yes, you can plagiarize from Bush_Cheney2004 all you want, but I'd personally choose a wiser mentor, if I were you.

What--again, exactly what--is "[my] own particular bias" here?

If i have a bias, it's the same as yours...although you strangely will not admit to it:

1. That not all contested information is of precisely equal truth-value;

2. That not all information we come across is false.

Doesn't sound to me like a terribly controversial "bias."

Edited March 29, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...Propaganda is about getting others to see things your way. Yes it is the equivalent. If you don't think so, you are just saying you accept different degrees of miss information based on your own particular bias.

Precisely....the notion of "propaganda" is equivalent. It doesn't change context or definition just because of the subject matter, complete with biased pronouncements about who "perfected" the technique. Is Canada conducting CAP and strike missions in Libya because of "propaganda"?