Why are we at war with Libya

[Shwa]

That type of streeet cred is 30+ years out of date....

Oh God no. Those original punks are rabidly revered by some of today's youth. And at earlier ages too.

Until they see some 60 year old geezer still stuck with safety pins, in smelly leather with a big greasy mohawk.

Those were the days...

[Wilber]

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

Yes?

I don't believe it, I know it. State propaganda is as old as recorded history.

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

I'm admonishing you because you represent your opinions as some kind of truth.

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?

See above and ask yourself who is 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.

Bet your ass it's my opinion. Negative propaganda is purely in the eye of the beholder.

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

I don't plagiarize BC, we have crossed swords more than once. If we agree on something it's because we agree, nothing more.

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."

Your bias is the assumption that anything you don't agree with is propaganda.

[bloodyminded]

Precisely....the notion of "propaganda" is equivalent.

Of course you know this isn't true at all.

It doesn't change context or definition just because of the subject matter, complete with biased pronouncements about who "perfected" the technique.

If the demonstrable history of Western propaganda is a "biased pronouncement," I'd be interested in hearing your alternate historical theories.

I'm not declaring they don't exist; I'd just like to hear them.

[bloodyminded]

I don't believe it, I know it. State propaganda is as old as recorded history.

I'm afraid you didn't understand my question.

Since I should simply forget about this issue (you declare imperiously) because propaganda has always been around and always will be...I'm asking if this applies to other matters that you might find personally interesting.

For example, if you feel a particular way about, say, government corruption (a closely related topic to mine here, I might add)...does that mean you, Wilber, should simply shut up about it? After all, it's always been around, and likely always will be.

For example, on this very thread, you opined about Khaddafi's corruption.

Why? That's nothing new; it's not limited to Khaddafi; it's an old story; and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

So maybe you should simply not bother discussing any topic that's "always been around" and is "as old as recorded history."

In other words, hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others. Can you manage that?

I'm admonishing you because you represent your opinions as some kind of truth.

Get outta my face with that nonsense. I'm talking about war propaganda--and I gave you a specific example, with citation. Within this example, I offered quotes from some of the propagandists themselves, freely admitting it.

That you don't bother reading my posts before pretending to know what was in them is 100% your own fault, and none of mine.

See above and ask yourself who is wandering off into vague generalities about contested information.

I asked you a direct, concrete question; and you not only ignore it, but then accuse me of "vague generalities."

You're proving my point for me. Thank you for the implied concession.

Bet your ass it's my opinion. Negative propaganda is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Ok, sport: I said: "You are stating that all points of view are equal and opposite elements of precisely the same thing."

And you respond, "you bet your ass it's my opinion."

So...if "all points of view are equal," then you think I'm right...and that you're right. Neither of us can be wrong. So you agree with me, even as you disagree.

????

Your bias is the assumption that anything you don't agree with is propaganda.

How do you figure? I've made no such claim, nor hinted at it. I gave you a concrete example--with citation.

And you ignore it. But what else can you do, since it proves you wrong?

I'm not sure why you insist upon being stubbornly and demonstrably wrong about this issue...to the point where you claim that all opinions are exactly equal. (And no..you don't believe this, so you should stop pretending that you do.)

Is it because you just now discovered that the Iraq War was predicated on deception of the public?

Oh jeez...you didn't support that war, based on exactly the information here discredited, did you????

Just wondering.

Edited March 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course you know this isn't true at all.

See...member Wilber is right...you hold your opinion as some ultimate truth...to the point of projecting what others know as well. Why waste your time here...head straight for the craps tables in Las Vegas.

If the demonstrable history of Western propaganda is a "biased pronouncement," I'd be interested in hearing your alternate historical theories.

I don't need any such theories...I am quite satisfied with simple reality, not your version of reality.

I'm not declaring they don't exist; I'd just like to hear them.

Why? Do you think the ultimate victory by government propaganda...which has now become war propaganda in recent posts...is some sort of contest for historical comparison? Or are you still just pouting over the Iraq war?

[bloodyminded]

See...member Wilber is right...you hold your opinion as some ultimate truth...to the point of projecting what others know as well. Why waste your time here...head straight for the craps tables in Las Vegas.

No. It's not my opinion. Based on the fact that you are disagreeing with me here, I know that you don't believe all contested information is of equal value.

Unless you're pretending to disagree with me, when actually you don't; but debates don't generally continue on that premise.

I don't need any such theories...I am quite satisfied with simple reality, not your version of reality.

Not my version, though one I agree with.

Are you saying history and knowledge of how things develop is unimportant to knowing how things develop?

Why? Do you think the ultimate victory by government propaganda...which has now become war propaganda in recent posts...is some sort of contest for historical comparison?

You must have missed the two or three times now where I've rejected any absolute statements on "ultimate victory by government propaganda."

Now that it's three times, I'm sure you'll be more aware, and stop arguing with phantom ideas that haven't been posited.

Or are you still just pouting over the Iraq war?

If disagreement is "pouting," then I guess everyone pouts a lot, over a lot of things. And the more disputatious a poster, the greater their volume of pouting.

Edited March 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

No. It's not my opinion. Based on the fact that you are disagreeing with me here, I know that you don't believe all contested information is of equal value.

But I do...you are confusing information with the method of communication, only to be judged by you and your own bias in retrospect. Sorry, but reality is more objective than that.

Are you saying history and knowledge of how things develop is unimportant to knowing how things develop?

No, I'm saying we can know how things develop without your brand of subjective spin. See James Burke's Connections as a good example. I prefer photographs over paintings.

You must have missed the two or three times now where I've rejected any absolute statements on "ultimate victory by government propaganda."

I don't think it matters...your "agenda" is clear. You just prefer your own version of propaganda.

Now that it's three times, I'm sure you'll be more aware, and stop arguing with phantom ideas that haven't been posited.

Not likely...such weaknesses are to be exploited, not ignored in this game. You should know that from your American hero...Noam Chomsky!

If disagreement is "pouting," then I guess everyone pouts a lot, over a lot of things. And the more disputatious a poster, the greater their volume of pouting.

Your contention was already proven one-sided if not outright false. It was and still is a bad example to hang your hat on.

Edited March 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

But I do...you are confusing information with the method of communication,

But if you believed my opinions were of equal value to your own, why would you be disputing them? You have told me, outright, that I'm wrong or mistaken, on several occasions.

So how could this be? Were you wrong to say I was wrong? But that wouldn't work either...because those opinions too (your own contradictory ones) are of exactly equal worth, within the perfectly balanced world of persuasion, political debate and philosophical discussion which you see as both "objective" and as "subjective bias."

only to be judged by you and your own bias in retrospect.

Yes, my "bias," to be forever unnamed, unspecified. I think you are referring to several of my (unnamed) biases, but for some reason conflating them into one overarching "bias." And why "in retrospect"?

Sorry, but reality is more objective than that.

The attempt at objectivity will allow for some navigation of history on the matter....in this case, of propaganda.

Not your refusal to engage with it, based on some hypothesis which you remain unable to even name, except that it's "simple."

I feel confident that you'll be able to summon the requisite intelligence to clarify this point.

No, I'm saying we can know how things develop without your brand of subjective spin.

Then by all means, allow us the pleasure of your ideas, which you so far have kept coded, if not hidden entirely. By the same token, you might spell out what exactly has been my "subjective spin," rather than only declaring it is so.

I don't think it matters.

That I have demonstrated your repeated claim about my alleged belief in the "victory" of government propaganda to be false? No, it's not terribly important, but remains a fact. It would seem less important if you stopped making the error. That's just my friendly advice.

..your "agenda" is clear.

So you've stated. I wait patiently for illustration of what you mean.

You just prefer your own version of propaganda.

What version? What propaganda?

Not likely...such weaknesses are to be exploited, not ignored in this game. You should know that from your American hero...Noam Chomsky!

I do admire old Noam, but I don't consider him a "hero." (I'm happy to clear up any of the many misconceptios you might hold about me.)

But how does your second sentence follow from your first?

Your contention was already proven one-sided if not outright false.

Sure, if your claim constitutes a "proof."

And yet you claim all information to be of equal value; so clearly what I have offered here is precisely as realistic and true (and "objective") as is your own, and anybody else's. It can't be "false," or at least must be "false" and "true" all at once.

It was and still is a bad example to hang your hat on.

But simultaneously a perfect example; and also a neutral one. Yes? It would have to conform in value to every single example anyone could possibly offer.

[bush_cheney2004]

But if you believed my opinions were of equal value to your own, why would you be disputing them? You have told me, outright, that I'm wrong or mistaken, on several occasions.

Because you were wrong based on facts, not my personal opinion.

Yes, my "bias," to be forever unnamed, unspecified. I think you are referring to several of my (unnamed) biases, but for some reason conflating them into one overarching "bias." And why "in retrospect"?

Why not? I welcome the opportunity to engage those who loathe my uber-nationalist bias with their own un-brand!

That I have demonstrated your repeated claim about my alleged belief in the "victory" of government propaganda to be false? No, it's not terribly important, but remains a fact. It would seem less important if you stopped making the error. That's just my friendly advice.

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

I do admire old Noam, but I don't consider him a "hero." (I'm happy to clear up any of the many misconceptios you might hold about me.)

Of course...this is quite obvious.

And yet you claim all information to be of equal value; so clearly what I have offered here is precisely as realistic and true (and "objective") as is your own, and anybody else's. It can't be "false," or at least must be "false" and "true" all at once.

Correct,...as "information" has equal value until subjectively priced by the market for ideas. How that information is processed and consumed will determine relevance, but even then only in a narrow context.

But simultaneously a perfect example; and also a neutral one. Yes? It would have to conform in value to every single example anyone could possibly offer.

Not at all....objects have different properties and attributes...but their value is not determined by the medium of propagation.

[bloodyminded]

Because you were wrong based on facts, not my personal opinion.

Pretty clumsy backtrack, but I give you half a point for a sincere attempt.

Why not? I welcome the opportunity to engage those who loathe my uber-nationalist bias with their own un-brand!

I don't loathe your "uber-nationalist bias." So, your premise is flawed. I'm mildly curious as to why you remain unable to exactly name my "bias" that has been the focus of so many of your remarks. If you don't quite know, then there's nothing for it, I guess.

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

Ah! Well, youthinks wrong. I'm happy to clear that up.

Of course...this is quite obvious.

Which of the three clauses? You're imprecise here.

Correct,...as "information" has equal value until subjectively priced by the market for ideas. How that information is processed and consumed will determine relevance, but even then only in a narrow context.

I don't think you've thought this through. But then, you aren't quite serious.

That's all right with me, but I should have recognized it earlier.

Not at all....objects have different properties and attributes...but their value is not determined by the medium of propagation.

No, and no one ever said it was. Again, you should discover this phantom with whom you're arguing, and then you'll recognize--perhaps through reading my posts, or something--that you are not talking to me at all.

Edited March 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....No, and no one ever said it was. Again, you should discover this phantom with whom you're arguing, and then you'll recognize--perhaps through reading my posts, or something--that you are not talking to me at all.

Then it is settled....we have pulled you in from the ledge, and propaganda can go back to just being propaganda, as stated many posts ago. May the best propaganda win!

[bloodyminded]

Then it is settled....we have pulled you in from the ledge, and propaganda can go back to just being propaganda, as stated many posts ago. May the best propaganda win!

May the truth win out!

[Shwa]

May the truth win out!

Pffft. As IF that will ever happen. I mean, have you seen all the propaganda out there lately?? You can't turn around without stepping in another pile of the stuff. Wear conscience-galoshes.

But alas, this has been going on for so long - forever apparently - why complain? You should instead be grateful to be a participant. A lot of work has gone into that stuff, somebody worked long hours. Now if you are a part of the group that ultimately benefits, good for you, but if not, you should be happy for them. I mean, someone has to win.

BTW, the new slogan today is "May the truth win out." This actually means, "May you not look too closely and if you do, ignore what you see - and all will be as right as rain."

[bloodyminded]

Pffft. As IF that will ever happen. I mean, have you seen all the propaganda out there lately?? You can't turn around without stepping in another pile of the stuff. Wear conscience-galoshes.

But alas, this has been going on for so long - forever apparently - why complain? You should instead be grateful to be a participant. A lot of work has gone into that stuff, somebody worked long hours. Now if you are a part of the group that ultimately benefits, good for you, but if not, you should be happy for them. I mean, someone has to win.

BTW, the new slogan today is "May the truth win out." This actually means, "May you not look too closely and if you do, ignore what you see - and all will be as right as rain."

Sure, it seems to work quite effectively!

And you're right; I will happy for the Great Winners, and that's it.

Short of being one of the the Great Winners yourself, being a Commissar is no doubt a delightedly comfortable position to be in.

[Sir Bandelot]

Pffft. As IF that will ever happen. I mean, have you seen all the propaganda out there lately?? You can't turn around without stepping in another pile of the stuff. Wear conscience-galoshes.

But alas, this has been going on for so long - forever apparently - why complain? You should instead be grateful to be a participant. A lot of work has gone into that stuff, somebody worked long hours. Now if you are a part of the group that ultimately benefits, good for you, but if not, you should be happy for them. I mean, someone has to win.

BTW, the new slogan today is "May the truth win out." This actually means, "May you not look too closely and if you do, ignore what you see - and all will be as right as rain."

That's why it must eventually win, because everyone knows about the lies. Yes it has been going on forever, but now in this generation we have new forms of media which is leading to an overall increase in awareness of world events and history, and disillusionment. As a resultmuch is being debated and disputed, but it's a revolution in human awareness nonetheless. As the saying goes, certain truths are self-evident. And people generally know what the truth smells like, vs. the "turd sandwiches" that Obama et al, the western elitist leadership conglomerate try to feed us.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And people generally know what the truth smells like, vs. the "turd sandwiches" that Obama et al, the western elitist leadership conglomerate try to feed us.

Nothing a little Heinz Tomato Ketchup can't fix....I use it on everything!

[DogOnPorch]

I thought that was Frank's Red Hot Sauce.

[Jack Weber]

I thought that was Frank's Red Hot Sauce.

Franks Red Hot Sauce is AWESOME!!!!

If you put that stuff on plain cheese and pepperoni pizza it kicks it up to the exponent of 10!!!!

One of the greatest culinary/condiment inventions EVER!!!!

[Shwa]

That's why it must eventually win, because everyone knows about the lies. Yes it has been going on forever, but now in this generation we have new forms of media which is leading to an overall increase in awareness of world events and history, and disillusionment. As a resultmuch is being debated and disputed, but it's a revolution in human awareness nonetheless. As the saying goes, certain truths are self-evident. And people generally know what the truth smells like, vs. the "turd sandwiches" that Obama et al, the western elitist leadership conglomerate try to feed us.

Sure, but even back in the day (and I mean baaaaaaaa-ck in the day) pamphlets were the new media and it didn't take long for them to regulated enough to suit the purpose of the ruling elites despite the self-evident truths of those times.

So I kind of wonder how long it will take before this new media is usurped and directed. Other than the rich corporations behind them I mean. And the damned ads...

[Shwa]

Franks Red Hot Sauce is AWESOME!!!!

If you put that stuff on plain cheese and pepperoni pizza it kicks it up to the exponent of 10!!!!

One of the greatest culinary/condiment inventions EVER!!!!

On spaghetti!

[bjre]

Actually I feel a slightly comfort when at last Obama decided to attack Libya for preparing his election.

If a monster need to eat a human been every 4 or 8 years, when it finished that eating, the money spent, money has been taken away by related party, other countries might be safe for a while. After all, bombs drop in Libya is better than drop to Korea, because it is much far away from my motherland.

[ToadBrother]

Actually I feel a slightly comfort when at last Obama decided to attack Libya for preparing his election.

If a monster need to eat a human been every 4 or 8 years, when it finished that eating, the money spent, money has been taken away by related party, other countries might be safe for a while. After all, bombs drop in Libya is better than drop to Korea, because it is much far away from my motherland.

China could have stopped the whole thing in its tracks... but chose to sit on its hands when the Security Council voted.

[bjre]

China could have stopped the whole thing in its tracks... but chose to sit on its hands when the Security Council voted.

China was not able to stop it. US attack Iraq without the Security Council agreement.

And the Security agreement this time is non-fly zone, not attacking.

[ToadBrother]

China was not able to stop it. US attack Iraq without the Security Council agreement.

And the Security agreement this time is non-fly zone, not attacking.

It came before the Security Council. If the attack was going to take place, China could have made sure it didn't happen with the Security Council's seal of approval. As it was, China and Russia abstained, and thus, for all intents and purposes, voted for the attack.

[M.Dancer]

].

And the Security agreement this time is non-fly zone, not attacking.

How do you enforce a no fly zome without attacks?