public relations

[j_b]

excellent piece on the use of pr/propaganda

 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/30/deception/index.html

[allthumbs]

I know that many of you are twisted in knots over the weapons of mass destruction thing. I know that many of you think the President lied about WMD. The fact is that all the indicators were there. Some say they are now in the Bekaa Valley.

 

We, the United States of America, did invade Iraq. We defeated them militarily in record time, covering darn near the whole country. In the process we destroyed a lot of infrastructure. Not as much as we could have, but we did destroy some.

 

Moreover, we destroyed their government. Most will agree that was a good thing. Some will say that at least it was stable and Hussein was keeping his foot on the neck of Shi'a militants. OK. That is probably a valid point. But the bottom line is - we destroyed their government.

 

The problem is that while we have won the war militarily, politically at home we represent a divided country over the WMD issue. Our enemies - Al Qaeda and similar factions - see this as a weakness. They consider us (Americans) a decadent and spineless people. We do not have the wherewithal to see this through to the desired end. They also see that the present administration is in trouble. They see the Democrats as anti-war/anti-occupation. So they are going to do whatever they can to drive that wedge deeper. That means more and more attacks against American soldiers. That means that they will ensure that any WMD will stay hidden forever - unless they pop up in NYC, Washington, Philadelphia, Atlanta, San Francisco, LA, wherever. As we draw closer to the election of November 04, I can guarantee you we will see the attacks heighten. I am sure that more and more foreign Arabs are flocking to Iraq for the opportunity to kill Satanist Americans. Why? Because they think we will fold. Go home. Leave them alone to fester in their little hell holes and cook up another 911 somewhere.

 

The bottom line? We are a country divided. We are allowing them through our sense of "fairplay" or whatever you want to call it to drive that wedge deeper. The only way we will defeat these bastards is through unity. Yes - I think we can and should criticize our government. The problem is - that is a totally foreign concept to these idiots. They think that our freedoms are our weakness.

 

How do we combat that? How do we win this war on these terrorists? How do we shut them down? How do we make the situation better? Do we run and hide? Do we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world? Do we cower in fear at the term "jihad"? Do we let them divide and conquer?

 

I'm looking for answers. I see none. Other than to stand upright in their midst and smack them down at every opportunity. There are going to be casualties, of that I am certain. But how else do you do this?

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

your post is actually worthy of a response, but in a different thread. you are off topic.

[Winter]

If the terorrists really wanted a Dem in power and knew anything about anything they wouldn't escalate attacks before the election, because that would only serve to strengthen Bush's hold on power. The best way to get a Dem in power is to slowly and deliberately undermine the American economy until the election without letting anyone know about it.

[allthumbs]

j_b said:

your post is actually worthy of a response, but in a different thread. you are off topic.

I didn't know where to put it and I didn't want to start the same old "Iraq" thread. Figured this was as good'a place as any.

[JayB]

Winter said:

If the terorrists really wanted a Dem in power and knew anything about anything they wouldn't escalate attacks before the election, because that would only serve to strengthen Bush's hold on power. The best way to get a Dem in power is to slowly and deliberately undermine the American economy until the election without letting anyone know about it.

 

I'd be interested in hearing you explain exactly how a terrorist organization would go about undermining the economy in such a fashion - especially the part about no one knowing about it. Another massive terrorist attack would probably do the trick, but such a deed would hardly go unnoticed.

[Fairweather]

United we...Stood.

[Sphinx]

Fairweather said:

United we...Stood.

Werd. Fucking Dems!

[j_b]

trask said:

I know that many of you are twisted in knots over the weapons of mass destruction thing. I know that many of you think the President lied about WMD. The fact is that all the indicators were there. Some say they are now in the Bekaa Valley.

 

they were destroyed during ealier inspections. you were offering no proof before the conflict and you keep spreading rumors.

 

The problem is that while we have won the war militarily

 

won? and soldiers, and civilians are still dying? we can't even stay in the cities at night.

 

The bottom line? We are a country divided. We are allowing them through our sense of "fairplay" or whatever you want to call it to drive that wedge deeper.

 

we were divided before the conflict. in fact, a large majority of americans wanted the un to continue inspections. unfortunately the bush administration had decided much earlier to go to war and refused to listen to the international community and a significant fraction of folks here.

 

The only way we will defeat these bastards is through unity. Yes - I think we can and should criticize our government. The problem is - that is a totally foreign concept to these idiots. They think that our freedoms are our weakness.

 

again there was not unity before the conflict and people only rallied becasue they were deceived. the problem is that you refuse to see that terrorism feisters on unfairness and you continue to believe that the issue can be resolved militarily. treating the symptoms without dealing with the cause is hopeless.

 

How do we combat that? How do we win this war on these terrorists?

 

'terrorism' is not disconnected from conditions in the middle east. even the central command now talks about "classic guerilla warfare".

 

Do we let them divide and conquer?

 

fighting a war under false pretense is the dividing issue

 

I'm looking for answers. I see none. Other than to stand upright in their midst and smack them down at every opportunity.But how else do you do this?

 

you have tunnel vision. let iraqis rebuild their country with help from the international community. giving away their wealth and access to their market without letting iraqis decide will for certain lead to much chaos in the region for decades.

[JayB]

How would you and your ilk dealt with Saddam? Potlucks? Candlelight vigils? By playing head-in-the-sand games and pretending that he wouldn't rebuild his arsenals once the pressure for ending the embargo reached a crescendo and the pressure on his regime abated? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions as the answer is an unequivocal yes on all three.

[j_b]

JayB said:

How would you and your ilk dealt with Saddam? Potlucks? Candlelight vigils? By playing head-in-the-sand games and pretending that he wouldn't rebuild his arsenals once the pressure for ending the embargo reached a crescendo and the pressure on his regime abated? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions as the answer is an unequivocal yes on all three.

 

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo.

 

and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it.

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

JayB said:

How would you and your ilk dealt with Saddam? Potlucks? Candlelight vigils? By playing head-in-the-sand games and pretending that he wouldn't rebuild his arsenals once the pressure for ending the embargo reached a crescendo and the pressure on his regime abated? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions as the answer is an unequivocal yes on all three.

 

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo.

 

and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it.

j_b in 2004!

[Doctorb]

Hi everybody!

 

I thought we were saving the US from emminent and total destruction at the hands of the EVIL Saddam Hussein. You see, he had hundreds of ICBMs, each carrying a payload of anthrax set to air burst over a major city in America on September 11th, 2003. Luckily, we were able to stop this madman by capturing him alive for an international trial at the Hague. His evil co-conspiritor Osama Bin Laden was also captured, when he tried to redeem the frequent flier miles earned by the 19 911 hijackers. We were aslo able to disarm all of the ICBMs at the last minute, thanks to the Omega Force and their Black X opps.

[rbw1966]

trask said:

I know that many of you are twisted in knots over the weapons of mass destruction thing. I know that many of you think the President lied about WMD. The fact is that all the indicators were there. Some say they are now in the Bekaa Valley.

 

We, the United States of America, did invade Iraq. We defeated them militarily in record time, covering darn near the whole country. In the process we destroyed a lot of infrastructure. Not as much as we could have, but we did destroy some.

 

Moreover, we destroyed their government. Most will agree that was a good thing. Some will say that at least it was stable and Hussein was keeping his foot on the neck of Shi'a militants. OK. That is probably a valid point. But the bottom line is - we destroyed their government.

 

The problem is that while we have won the war militarily, politically at home we represent a divided country over the WMD issue. Our enemies - Al Qaeda and similar factions - see this as a weakness. They consider us (Americans) a decadent and spineless people. We do not have the wherewithal to see this through to the desired end. They also see that the present administration is in trouble. They see the Democrats as anti-war/anti-occupation. So they are going to do whatever they can to drive that wedge deeper. That means more and more attacks against American soldiers. That means that they will ensure that any WMD will stay hidden forever - unless they pop up in NYC, Washington, Philadelphia, Atlanta, San Francisco, LA, wherever. As we draw closer to the election of November 04, I can guarantee you we will see the attacks heighten. I am sure that more and more foreign Arabs are flocking to Iraq for the opportunity to kill Satanist Americans. Why? Because they think we will fold. Go home. Leave them alone to fester in their little hell holes and cook up another 911 somewhere.

 

The bottom line? We are a country divided. We are allowing them through our sense of "fairplay" or whatever you want to call it to drive that wedge deeper. The only way we will defeat these bastards is through unity. Yes - I think we can and should criticize our government. The problem is - that is a totally foreign concept to these idiots. They think that our freedoms are our weakness.

 

How do we combat that? How do we win this war on these terrorists? How do we shut them down? How do we make the situation better? Do we run and hide? Do we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world? Do we cower in fear at the term "jihad"? Do we let them divide and conquer?

 

I'm looking for answers. I see none. Other than to stand upright in their midst and smack them down at every opportunity. There are going to be casualties, of that I am certain. But how else do you do this?

 

 

trask said:. . . once again was too fucking long to read. Get a clue Mr. Cut'n Paste...no one wants to read those long-assed boring posts you come up with. Can't you try cutting it down to a paragraph similar in size to this one? Thank you for your patience. [\quote]

[JayB]

j_b said:

JayB said:

How would you and your ilk dealt with Saddam? Potlucks? Candlelight vigils? By playing head-in-the-sand games and pretending that he wouldn't rebuild his arsenals once the pressure for ending the embargo reached a crescendo and the pressure on his regime abated? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions as the answer is an unequivocal yes on all three.

 

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo.

 

and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it.

 

That's nice - very moving - but what is your answer to the original question?

 

[j_b]

JayB said:

j_b said:

JayB said:

How would you and your ilk dealt with Saddam? Potlucks? Candlelight vigils? By playing head-in-the-sand games and pretending that he wouldn't rebuild his arsenals once the pressure for ending the embargo reached a crescendo and the pressure on his regime abated? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions as the answer is an unequivocal yes on all three.

 

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo.

 

and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it.

 

That's nice - very moving - but what is your answer to the original question?

 

i thought it was obvious. not create and perpetuate the problem. there were plenty of opportunities to derail him during his 30 year in power and there would have been many more ... short of creating this mess and killing ~30000 iraqis.

[JayB]

The question was not "How would you invent your own retroactive reality in order to avoid outlining the specific manner in which you would deal with Saddam Hussein and his regime?" Your evasion is answer enough. Thanks.

[Sphinx]

JayB said:

The question was not "How would you invent your own retroactive reality in order to avoid outlining the specific manner in which you would deal with Saddam Hussein and his regime?" Your evasion is answer enough. Thanks.

[j_b]

JayB said:

The question was not "How would you invent your own retroactive reality in order to avoid outlining the specific manner in which you would deal with Saddam Hussein and his regime?" Your evasion is answer enough. Thanks.

 

until you provide evidence that what you call 'my retroactive reality' is not historical fact, my answer stands. your use of put downs without providing support for your case is evidence enough of the vacuity of your rhetoric.

 

also note, that i was kind enough to answer your question, which had nothing to do with my answer to trask's post. you could at least bother to refute my argument cogently. your failure to do so , undoubtedly points to your being unable to counter my points.

[JayB]

What points? All you said was "In a world run by me this never would have happened" That's not an argument - it's a self-indulgent fantasy. The actual historical facts are that Hussein was in power in 2002, and for the previous decade the US and its allies used an economic embargo to contain the regime. What would you have done if you were given both the responsibility for formulating policy in this arena and the power to implement it in 2002 and had to confront the situation as it existed at that time? Any policy would of necessity be centered on either continuing the embargo, discontinuing the embargo, removing Hussein by force, or some variation thereof. Which would you choose and why? Either answer the question or decline but spare me the Kumbayah inspired visions of a past that never was.

[j_b]

JayB said:

What points? All you said was "In a world run by me this never would have happened" That's not an argument - it's a self-indulgent fantasy.

 

just pretending to operate in a magical vacuum where suddenly saddam appears to be a problem in 1991 without considering all that we did to prop him up beforehand or a consideration of what our continued mid-east policies, is delusion.

 

The actual historical facts are that Hussein was in power in 2002, and for the previous decade the US and its allies used an economic embargo to contain the regime. What would you have done if you were given both the responsibility for formulating policy in this arena and the power to implement it in 2002 and had to confront the situation as it existed at that time?

 

i told you already: let the international community deal with iraq, i.e. deal with the real problem which is that of democracy for the people of iraq and their ownership of their resources. not that of a bogus military threat to us.

 

Any policy would of necessity be centered on either continuing the embargo, discontinuing the embargo, removing Hussein by force, or some variation thereof. Which would you choose and why?

 

you'll find the answers to these questions in my previous responses.

 

 

Either answer the question or decline but spare me the Kumbayah inspired visions of a past that never was.

 

yeah right. we are going to ignore bankrupt policies that are the source of the problem just to entertain an artificial construct: "we have an evil guy that needs to be eliminated, but let's not consider how we did not think he was evil as long as he did our bidding". until you acknowledge your contribution to the problem, you cannot be credibly part of the solution. on the contrary, it points to your wanting to perpetuate the status quo and strictly replace the puppets.

[mr.radon]

Not to sound callus but after reading some of the posts it is interesting to note this.

How many of the some odd 140,000 US troops we have on the ground would have been killed through no fault of their own had they not deployed to Iraq? Are 4-6 casualties per week high? I don’t think so. The fact that a mighty country like the US can be hamstrung by Media hype over every dead soldier is perplexing. We have the world’s strongest military but any conflict has to be casualty free. Let us look at this in perspective. We lost over 3000 civilians on 9-11. To date we’ve lost about 300 soldiers taking over Afghanistan and Iraq. What a deal.

The only effect the continual focus on all the negative events in Iraq have is to undermine the administration and motivate the Arab militants. I think we should treat the media as we did in the first Gulf War and not repeat the mistakes we made in Vietnam. The media would rather increase their ratings covering only the blood and gore in Iraq (motivating our enemies) then providing the American public with balanced news reports. Until the area stabilizes, I’d put the media in pools, and sensor all reports leaving the country. Anyone violates the rules gets kicked out of Iraq. Keep the policy until the new Iraq government takes power.

 

[allthumbs]

[JayB]

Question: “What Color is the sky”

 

Answer: “Blue.”

 

j_b’s answer: “yu cant anser the question without first considering the manner in which the wests epistemic colonialism subjugatd and devalued the diverse and heterodox notions of color in the indigenous peoples who had their own distinct notions of the physical world and the phenomena they observed within ti. the very question assumes a normative uniformity in visual perception that shows how the subtle bias of the dominant cultural hegemons has crept into the standard discourse concerning even the most elemental phenomena. legitimizing such a question in the absence of a preliminary discourse concerning responsibility for the cognitive holocaust which the west inflicted upon the subjugated peoples and their pre-colonical standards of optical norms would represent a wholesale capitulation before and abasement to the interest of the pigmento-industrial complex which chomsky has so deftly indicted in his works outlining their efforts to manufacture a false, consumerist consensus regarding the normative standards that underlie the conventional notions and definitions of what constitutes 'Color' "etc, etc, etc....

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

mr.radon said:

Not to sound callus but after reading some of the posts it is interesting to note this.

How many of the some odd 140,000 US troops we have on the ground would have been killed through no fault of their own had they not deployed to Iraq?

 

almost none. the military is composed of healthy individuals who are pretty much only subject to accidental death.

 

Are 4-6 casualties per week high? I don’t think so.

 

2.3 casualties per day (16 per week) on average since march, plus ~10 wounded per day who in all likelyhood will bear the 'scars' for life. these numbers do not include the huge numbers of 'syndrome' victims who invariably crop up in the decade following conflicts.

 

The fact that a mighty country like the US can be hamstrung by Media hype over every dead soldier is perplexing. We have the world’s strongest military but any conflict has to be casualty free. Let us look at this in perspective. We lost over 3000 civilians on 9-11. To date we’ve lost about 300 soldiers taking over Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

365 coalition casualties to date in iraq alone.

 

What a deal.

 

err ...

 

The only effect the continual focus on all the negative events in Iraq have is to undermine the administration and motivate the Arab militants. I think we should treat the media as we did in the first Gulf War and not repeat the mistakes we made in Vietnam. The media would rather increase their ratings covering only the blood and gore in Iraq (motivating our enemies) then providing the American public with balanced news reports. Until the area stabilizes, I’d put the media in pools, and sensor all reports leaving the country. Anyone violates the rules gets kicked out of Iraq. Keep the policy until the new Iraq government takes power.

 

it's not the media that lost vietnam, it's the unability to convert military victories to political control of the country. short of killing many more millions of vietnamese it would never have happened. this 'media is the culprit' is bogus. you are very naive if you think the iraq opposition relies on fickle, easily manipulated and often ignored public opinion in the us to kick us out.