Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

PaganToris · 2003-01-05 22:12:28

I hear all kinds of people talking bout Propaganda might i ask what the hell it is?
I know one of my friends no saying names his mom used to whatch the news and he would point out all the propaganda and she would get mad at him LOL
You know who you are *wink* *wink*

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 00:50:32

Propaganda is the publishing of biased documents that favor the opinions of the entity creating the publications. It's stuff like a war poster depicting the enemy in a bad way, etc. It's an effort to rally the public to the government. (or any other entity) actions.

As for OUR government creating propaganda, I suppose everyone making fun of Bush for being "stupid" and making up words (like misunderestimate) would look pretty shady to me... (**HINT**--) the media is more liberal than anyone cares to admit-- the Republicans only control talk radio, which nobody listens to anyway)

soph · 2003-01-06 05:47:36

The media...is liberal? Yeah, the same media that plastered Clinton's infidelity on the front page didnt touch bush and cheneys business deals.

The American media is very republican right now. They step right in line with whatever war the president wants.

And "The Axis of Evil" is a perfect example of propoganda....inciting the west to believe that these three countries are about to nuke us.

clark · 2003-01-06 13:00:25

Propaganda is something like Mars Direct, the Mars Society, or anything else that puts a personaly motivated spin on an issue.

Consider it an unbalanced one-sided story that does not adquetly, or even at all, address the reality of other positions or perspectives.

clark · 2003-01-06 13:26:00

Here is something to consider regarding propaganda and the looming war in the middle east. If the statements are true, it indicates the problems with propaganda in a free society. If we are lied to, or misled by our leaders, how can we effectively make a decision or formulate our own thoughts on the issues. We can only make wise decisions, or hold our leaders accountable if we have true and uncorrupted information with which to understand what is going on.

The following appeared in the Sunday LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news....comment

By Victor Marshall, Victor Marshall, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a public policy group, is the author of "To Have and Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War."

OAKLAND -- The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice.

The first Bush administration, which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era.

When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. "If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms," he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world's major oil fields. The globe's industrial economies would be held hostage if Iraq succeeded.

The reality was different. Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration's estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday's Susan Sachs called Iraq the "phantom enemy": "The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn't be found."

Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler-style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf. Iraq also chafed at Kuwait's demand that Iraq repay loans made to it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Administration officials seemed to understand all this. In July 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie told Hussein that Washington had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait," a statement she later regretted.

The National Security Council's first meeting after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, "Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it's just a gas station -- and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?"

But administration hawks, led by Cheney, saw a huge opportunity to capitalize on Iraq's move against Kuwait. The elder Bush publicly pronounced, "a line has been drawn in the sand," and he called for a "new world order ... free from the threat of terror." His unstated premise, as noted by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was that the United States "henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree" as it attempted "to pursue our national interests."

The administration realized that a peaceful solution to the crisis would undercut its grand ambitions. The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw. To justify war with Hussein, the Bush administration condoned a propaganda campaign on Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Americans were riveted by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti so-called refugee's eyewitness accounts of Iraqi soldiers yanking newborn babies out of hospital incubators in Kuwait, leaving them on a cold floor to die.

The public didn't know that the eyewitness was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, and that her congressional testimony was reportedly arranged by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and paid for by Kuwait as part of its campaign to bring the United States into war.

To this day, most people regard Operation Desert Storm as remarkably clean, marked by the expert use of precision weapons to minimize "collateral damage." While American TV repeatedly broadcast pictures of cruise missiles homing in on their targets, the Pentagon quietly went about a campaign of carpet bombing. Of the 142,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait in 43 days, only about 8% were of the "smart" variety.

The indiscriminate targeting of Iraq's civilian infrastructure left the country in ruins. A United Nations mission in March 1991 described the allied bombing of Iraq as "near apocalyptic" and said it threatened to reduce "a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society ... to a preindustrial age." Officially, the U.S. military listed only 79 American soldiers killed in action, plus 59 members of allied forces.

A subsequent demographic study by the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead -- 40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other international bodies.

The Gulf War amply demonstrated the merit of two adages: "War is hell" and "Truth is the first casualty." To date, nothing suggests that a second Gulf War would prove any less costly to truth or humans.

soph · 2003-01-06 14:56:44

Half a million children killed by sanctions is crap. I dont support sanctions, but they dont kill people. thats a myth. iraq can get as much food as they want. the oil-for-food limits are only in place because iraq used the money for such things as soviet garbage trucks that they converted into mobile missle launchers.

that is the only issue i have with this article.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 16:22:41

Propaganda is bias. Sometimes it's lies. And sometimes it's half truths (ie, only part of the issue is dealt with).

PaganToris · 2003-01-06 20:07:27

Ohhh ok i now now im suprised Phobos aint on my case bouyt propaganda

AltToWar · 2003-01-07 03:13:58

Half a million children killed by sanctions is crap. I dont support sanctions, but they dont kill people. thats a myth. iraq can get as much food as they want. the oil-for-food limits are only in place because iraq used the money for such things as soviet garbage trucks that they converted into mobile missle launchers.
that is the only issue i have with this article.

UNICEF would not agree with you. Why not see what they have to say about it?

Iraq can get as much food as it wants? Why is it that there is more then enough food grown each year to feed everyone on the planet, yet people still go hungry? There is enough food after all. Answer this and you might get a bette understanding as to why people starved in Iraq.

The biggest killer though was not starvation, but the lack of sanitary waiste water treatment. These plants require chemicals like chlorine that are to this day still not allowed in. These plants were damaged or destroyed during the gulf war. Parts and equipment needed to repair them were not allowed in to fix them.

Civilian power plants were targeted and destroyed during the Gulf War. (This is illegal, according to the geneva convention btw) Vital services were cut off, like water treatment and sewage treatment and hospitals. Equipment to repair them was not allowed in.

soph · 2003-01-07 05:29:36

When Iraq had the chance, it used its revenues for things completely different from oil. Like palaces. Saddam doesnt care about feeding his people, so the US gets the blame.

AltToWar · 2003-01-07 07:45:38

When Iraq had the chance, it used its revenues for things completely different from oil. Like palaces. Saddam doesnt care about feeding his people, so the US gets the blame.

bullshit
Iraq does not even control how the oil for food money is spent.

clark · 2003-01-07 10:54:36

Sweet Jebus- the US government lied to us to capatilize on the opportunity to fufill some hidden politcal agenda!

THEY lied to us before the Gulf War to get us into the Gulf War and now it is happenign again!

Dosen't anyone get it?

It's the gulf of tonken all over again.

Nothing has be learned.
The same mistakes are being repeated.

Our government says that Iraq is responsible for those 500,000 deaths- this is the same government that told us we had to defend democracy by waging war!

Several international agencies, who are not politcaly involved, suggest that we are to blame. Let's say that the 500,000 deaths are not our fault- what about everything else?!

soph · 2003-01-07 13:59:27

no, how about this, america is easy to blame for everything, so lets blame everything on america!

alt, read something besides ultra-liberal media. try a refreshing look at an objective source.

clark · 2003-01-07 14:19:43

Not everything is America's fault. What is being brought up though, is.

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 00:41:18

no, how about this, america is easy to blame for everything, so lets blame everything on america!
alt, read something besides ultra-liberal media. try a refreshing look at an objective source.

Would you prefer I watch the Fox News Channel?

Madiline Albright did not dispute the numbers or our causation on 60 minutes. In fact she said the price was worth it.

I believe myself to be very objective. I go to multiple media sources for information. I read both sides of an argument. I double check facts. I search for original sources.

Just because things are unplesant to know, it does not mean that they are not true. You genuinely have to be apathetic or an idiot to buy the bullshit we are being fed as far as the cause and our intentions in the current Gulf War.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 15:04:16

I believe myself to be very objective.

Everyone believes themselves to be objective. Neither neo-nazis nor communists generally think themselves "extreme"

Just something we should all bear in mind...

soph · 2003-01-10 15:24:20

i would have a lot to say, but i dont want to perpetuate a flamewar that i didnt start, and see no reason to continue.

Palomar · 2003-01-10 15:40:08

Everyone believes themselves to be objective. Neither neo-nazis nor communists generally think themselves "extreme"

Just something we should all bear in mind...
*Hmmmm, I'm not so certain that'd be true in the case of neo-Nazis; some similar groups admit they are radical/extreme and in fact laud this aspect of their ways.

On a darkly humorous note, I saw on the news yesterday [Yahoo!] that a Mr. Hale of Peoria, IL, an avowed and self-admitted white supremacist, is going to trial on charges of arranging the assassination of a court judge. Mr. Hale is founder of an organization called "Church of the Creator" or something like that...anyway, he was quoted in a harangue as declaring "the tyrants won't take the holy scriptures from us," blah blah blah, something like that.

Mr. Hale yells about tyrants when, IMO, that's precisely what he is.

I do recall a proverb of King Solomon: "The ways of a man are right in his own eyes."

Maybe the line between subjectivity and objectivity is a bit thinner than we care to admit to ourselves...me included, of course.

Reading recommendation: _Prometheus Rising_ by Robert Anton Wilson.

Just some comments; I'm ::not:: seeking a long-term discussion relative to this.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 17:54:42

*Hmmmm, I'm not so certain that'd be true in the case of neo-Nazis; some similar groups admit they are radical/extreme and in fact laud this aspect of their ways.

Just based on my own personal experience, alot of neo-nazis genuinely believe they are being completely rational. Of course others just like the comraderie, drinking, and pissing people off.

I do recall a proverb of King Solomon: "The ways of a man are right in his own eyes."

great quote. I'll file that away. One of these days I'll get around to reading "Prometheus Rising" as well.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-06-12 05:34:50

an old topic

on Earth gonzo journalism, the end of objectivity and non-partistan in the USA and Europe?

RFK Junior could act as a disrupter in the presidential election – taking votes from both sides
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rfk-junior-co … 11854.html

Robert F Kennedy Junior’s chances of winning the White House are slimmer than his neckties – but he does hold significant power to disrupt the upcoming election.
Kennedy’s sartorial accessory of choice – a super-skinny tie, which he pairs with a classic button-down shirt and blazer – is a not-so-subtle ode to the preppy, iconic style of his uncle, former president John F Kennedy.

Six key takeaways from the European elections in Spain
https://www.thelocal.es/20240610/six-ke … s-in-spain

Time runs out for Olaf Scholz
https://www.politico.eu/article/spd-ola … ng-reform/

French elections: Is Macron’s strategy to let Le Pen fail?
https://www.thespec.com/opinion/columni … 3698f.html

however despite past disputes with other Manned vs Unmanned community

efforts of unity made among a Mars community

Rebirth of New Mars; Establishment of New Mars Editorial Board
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6035

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-06-12 05:36:16)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-05 22:12:28

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#2 2003-01-06 00:50:32

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#3 2003-01-06 05:47:36

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#4 2003-01-06 13:00:25

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#5 2003-01-06 13:26:00

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#6 2003-01-06 14:56:44

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#7 2003-01-06 16:22:41

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#8 2003-01-06 20:07:27

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#9 2003-01-07 03:13:58

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#10 2003-01-07 05:29:36

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#11 2003-01-07 07:45:38

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#12 2003-01-07 10:54:36

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#13 2003-01-07 13:59:27

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#14 2003-01-07 14:19:43

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#15 2003-01-08 00:41:18

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#16 2003-01-10 15:04:16

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#17 2003-01-10 15:24:20

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#18 2003-01-10 15:40:08

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#19 2003-01-10 17:54:42

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

#20 2024-06-12 05:34:50

Re: Can someone explain Propaganda - Speak what u like!

Board footer