Iraq faces massive US missile barrage

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: propaganda

To me, pro-American means to favor American policies and lifestyle. That's a bias. But at least we agree the American news media only broadcasts what corporate sponsors want to hear.


Sorry, not from me. I'm not going to use up Fred's valuable megabits just to make you happy. I quote what I deem necessary. And I respond when I deem it necessary.

d

D, the DNC is not a corporation but is the Democratic National Conress. It's the guys who just got their a** kicked in the mid term election that they were suppose to win.

The media in the US is entirely self serving. They hate politicians as well as corporations. I know you live in a conspiracy theory world but believe me, if there were corporate control of news content someone would break the story for their 15 minutes of fame.

I do think that there is a bit of self-loathing in our (US) media. But these people are also (mostly) Americans and they have the same nationalist tendencies as anyone else.

I do appreciate you keeping your quotes under control, Dr. Gonzo used to cost me many an hour reading all his cut and past. You do need to be careful with those ..... in the middle of your quotes.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

It's been posted

And doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

I've seen Powell speak; I'd follow him over a hill! The guy is amazing. You could be looking at the first black president in the US.

This issue is not about personalities; if you hate Bush you hate Bush. It has nothing to do with the US going to war with Iraq. I think you can hate Bush and see the need.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: It's been posted

I wish I was looking at the next president of the US, never mind that he'd be the first black one. No wait! I take that back...I wish I was looking at the CURRENT president. Then we wouldn't be having this morbid discussion about more missiles for Iraq. The last US president I really trusted was Jimmy Carter!

If you accept the obvious fact that nobody outside the oval office is ever going to know the real reasons or secret intelligence behind this latest US initiative against Iraq, it comes down to trust in the integrity of the leadership. We have to believe Dubya when he tells us that he has the goods about WMD, that he is only trying to save the world from evil, that he has no hidden agenda, that the end justifies the means, that God is on his side, that he has a plan to prevent an ecological catastrophe when Saddam detonates his oilfields, that he has a viable plan to reconstruct an independent Iraq when (and if) the smoke clears etc. etc. How could all this not be about Dubya's integrity? He controls so much of the information that we are permitted to receive, he almost creates our reality! And the Toronto Star article even illustrates how the press will probably just look the other way.

And is it really so off topic? The topic of this thread is: "Iraq faces massive US missile barrage". Sounds like a pretty open topic to me. And to many others. The comments in this thread have covered the whole spectrum from the why's to the what if's. Surely Dubya's integrity (or lack thereof) is relevant. And who really cares if it fits neatly into this thread or some other? It needs to be said, especially when you consider the many thousands he is proposing to kill.

To say that personalities (Dubya's) have nothing to do with the need for the US going to war with Iraq is to ignore his real power. He could probably manufacture a case for bombing Iceland if you gave him enough time. Seriously! This integrity issue reminds me of a saying I heard somewhere: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care". In other words trust comes first. Facts come second.

I can sympathies with the view of Carter, I liked him too (and still do) and voted for him once. While he's a great person he was a terrible President.

I'm not so sure we wouldn't be having this discussion if Powell was president. While he is the administration dove he is leading the charge now. I think that if he felt it was the wrong thing to do he'd go back on the speaking circuit and leave the job to someone else.

I don't accept the fact that no one outside the oval office will get access to the intelligence. In fact I'd bet that the oval office only gets what the NSA and CIA want it to get. While there are certainly secrets none of us will never know I'm sure by the time the snow melts in Toronto there will be hard evidence of the smoking gun that everyone is looking for.

It may need to be said, my point was that it's been said many times.

Iceland, I was hoping for Ontario LOL. While the most powerful guy in the world he can't go to war alone.

OTB

 

[Timberwolf]

Dammit!!!!

Onethebottom. I REALLY wanted to get into the mix here. You know my bent. But you said it all so well, at this point I have nothing to add. That is what I get for leaving town for a few days. Leave me some scraps in the future.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's been posted

Powell is a patriot and no quitter. If it was his show, he could do things differently but, for now, he is stuck being the front man for the pathetic Dubya and his cronies. In a way he has run out of diplomatic rope so now must either quit or stay and fight on the inside where he'll still do some good and hopefully be remembered as the voice of reason and restraint. I don't envy his position and I hope he doesn't get too dirty having to rub up against those other creeps.

Also off topic but another fine article by my new found friend Linda McQuaig:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...=968256290204&call_pagepath=Editorial/Opinion

It's convenient (for me, limiting my need for cut and paste) that Ms. McQuaig is able to make two stupid points in two consecutive sentences "Given the staggering weakness of Iraq, war is not only unnecessary, it's downright absurd. If the inspectors do find some deadly weapons, why don't they simply confiscate them?"

Wouldn't you have to find every weapon for this to work. Is not the burden of proof on Iraq? Iraq is weaker than the US (like every other nation in the world) but is not (unfortunately) defenseless. I find it humorous that she states that the US is picking on a country that can't defend itself then sites the New York Times with a casualty estimate of 500,000 allied dead.

Iraq has approximately 500,000 regular troops, with most of the high quality AA and Republican Guard troops close to Baghdad.

I won't bore the readers with disputing every one of her assertions (which are almost all incorrect).

She must not be the sharpest knife in the Toronto Star's draw.

OTB

 

[mottel]

Saddam husain and Iraq deserve all they get. The USA should start the war ASAP

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's been posted

(nearly imitates John Wayne)

Oh Yeah!!! Well then TAKE THIS ONE!!! BAM! SPLATT!!!

Another of my new best friends: Matt Welch LOL!!!

http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/facts.htm

From your link:

"One of the great virtues of American democracy, especially compared to the closed dictatorships of the Arab world, is the structural bias in favour of truth-telling and transparency. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for arguably the strongest free-press protections in the world. Wall Street regulations, especially after the most recent round of post-Enron disclosure-tightening, set the global pace for strict reporting standards. At American behest, a key pre-condition for Central European countries to enter NATO was the separation of press and state. When the U.S. prohibited its companies to dole out foreign bribes back in the 1970s, it was the only major country to do so; now scores have followed suit."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Or:

"Call it the Hegemon's Burden. Anytime the United States summons itself to what it considers a high moral duty -- the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, the Gulf War, Yugoslavia -- Beltway skin becomes ever more thin. Mobilize forces to act on a principle and out of a sense of responsibility for improving the world, and even your best friends call you a power-gobbling hypocrite. It gets tiresome."

Thanks for the link

OTB

 

[*d*]

Re: Re: Re: propaganda

Many, like yourself *d*, are getting their information from alternative publications. You see, *d*, you can go to Chapters (read: Capitalist retailer) and purchase a copy of your favourite latest leftist magazine. In that publication is all kinds of anti-Capitalist lies and bullshit.

Why would I look up lies and bullsh**? I want facts. Don't you?

d

 

[*d*]

Re: Agree??????

You don't know what the DNC is???????? Democrat National Congress. Hate to break it to you. But that is the Democrat party not a shoe store in New York City.

Democratic, Republic, corporate America, mainstream US media; they're all pro-American and stand behind their US policies. So, are you saying you're not convinced corporate America runs the media? Or are you just trying to discredit me again? What are you saying?

d

 

[papasmerf]

Re: Re: Agree??????

Democratic, Republic, corporate America, mainstream US media; they're all pro-American and stand behind their US policies. So, are you saying you're not convinced corporate America runs the media? Or are you just trying to discredit me again? What are you saying?

d

Actually D what i am saying is you are not as imformed as opinionated.
But I respect your right to that as I am an AMERICAN as support and defend FREE SPEACH.

 

[*d*]

Re: Oh D

Ken Pollack is ex CIA, MIT and NSA. I think he's a fairly qualified guy from which to draw information. Unlike say that Greenwich village rag you quoted.

Ken Pollack has only dealt with those organizations that support US foreign policies. He studied Iraq on that pretense, but when asked a simple question about another country, Pakistan, in an interview he said "I know nothing about Pakistan."

If the US just wanted the oil, believe me we'd already have it. We sent 2000 tanks HOME in 1991, they were very well equipped to take control of the oil fields in southern Iraq.

The US doesn't want to own the oil fields, it wants to control them. A whole different ballgame.

Bluff the world with terrorism? You have not been to Wall Street lately have you. I work in NYC and was at the World Trade Center site a week after they came down. It didn't look like a bluff to me.

Terrorism is becoming the new catch phrase around the world. Each country's enemies are now becoming terrorists. The US has a problem with some Islamic fundamentalists. Most other countries did not, but have inherited the problem after the US started beating their drum.

The US does not control the world oil market, if we did you would be paying 25 cents a gallon, believe me. Corrupt dictators control the world oil market, one of which is dangerous to the region. He's about to loose his job.

And I suppose the workers in Venezuela are over paid.

 

[*d*]

Re: Re: Re: propaganda

The media in the US is entirely self serving. They hate politicians as well as corporations. I know you live in a conspiracy theory world but believe me, if there were corporate control of news content someone would break the story for their 15 minutes of fame.

Conspiracy theory is a blanket expression to generalize anything or anyone that goes against any part of US policies. Its a cop out expression to quickly dismiss any such accusations and not face the issues. Corporate control of news is old hat. Its 15 minutes of fame has been and gone, time and again.

d

 

[Timberwolf]

My god what bullshit.

 

[luckyjackson]

Proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[*d*]

Lucky & Timberwolf
Can your responses be anymore useless than that?

Back on topic. Sadly Selina, my prediction is that US forces will hit the city of Basra in southern Iraq first. And they will hit it hard. Got to protect those oil fields.

d

 

[luckyjackson]

"Can your responses be anymore useless than that? "

Well.....yes. I could have written what you did.

At least mine had the virtue of brevity.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: FINALLY!

O.K. boys, let's play Iraq VS USA !!
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml



XOXO Selina, Ultimate PSE.....
Are you Experienced?
http://www.geocities.com/sinfulselina

But I thought your entire argument was that Iraq didn't have WMD. If that's the case then most of this "game" is invalid. Or if Iraq does have WMD then what's your point? Or do you just like to stir the pot without a point?

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's been posted

Not so fast there OTB, you missed the "other" good parts:

"But the main reason why this bird won't fly is also the most insidious -- Washington's drive for better public relations is motivated far more by expedient operational concerns than anything so high and mighty as telling the truth. The administration would rather manipulate than fact-check, and the Foreign Service reserves the right to cozy up to local despots by bashing America's free press."

And, of course:

"There have been hundreds of books written about the 1970s foreign policy establishment, and most paint a picture of secrecy, lies, adventurous realpolitik, abuse of power and constant annoyance at the American media. Soon after Sept. 11, Rumsfeld conjured up those bad old memories with a reference to Church-ill's famous crack about safeguarding the truth in a "tissue of lies." As the Times reported in its story, "Senior Pentagon officials said Rumsfeld was deeply frustrated that the U.S. government had no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favour of America." Canadians, for instance, are now subjects to be moulded, not friends to be convinced."

At least Welch can be counted upon to paint a more three dimensional picture. He's the least biased writer on American foreign policy that I've found so far. That fairness makes his few criticisms that much more effective. Glad you approve! LOL

While I didn't agree with the conclusion I did like the balance. I don't only appreciate people / views that I agree with. I would hope that the US has a concerted effort to spin public opinion in our favor. If not, someone is not doing their job. Lying no, but spinning, of course. Ever meet a girl and say "I have a small dick"? I didn't think so, push the positive.

The US has a serious public relations problem, we should work on it. I think that was the point of the article.

I find it funny that people state the US Government is working in the interests of it's citizens like there is some news there. "Canadian Government said today that they support Canadian citizens, film at 11". Why else would you have a government?

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Oh D

Ken Pollack has only dealt with those organizations that support US foreign policies. He studied Iraq on that pretense, but when asked a simple question about another country, Pakistan, in an interview he said "I know nothing about Pakistan."

I'd love see the source of that quote, not unreasonable for an Iraq specialist. Some people don't talk when they don't know anything (no one on this board mind you). Ken Pollack has MADE policy and argued for policies that didn't get made. The book is incredibly balanced.

"Kenneth M. Pollack is Senior Fellow and Deputy Director for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1999 to 2001 he served as Director for Gulf Affairs on the staff of the National Security Council."

I stand by my source. If you bother to read the book it's very balanced. If your attention span isn't that long (or you cant afford 20 bucks) read this: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020301faessay7970/kenneth-m-pollack/next-stop-baghdad.html it's a year old and still applies.

The US doesn't want to own the oil fields, it wants to control them. A whole different ballgame.

Control them how? Do we want to break the OPEC cartel? Do we want to set prices? Why if we wanted control would we not just take them? Evidence or credible sources please. Oh yeah, a conspiracy theory.

Terrorism is becoming the new catch phrase around the world. Each country's enemies are now becoming terrorists. The US has a problem with some Islamic fundamentalists. Most other countries did not, but have inherited the problem after the US started beating their drum.
And I suppose the workers in Venezuela are over paid.

So the World Trade Center "event" was not terrorism? How about the Pentagon?

I don't get the Venezuela workers comment, although I don't believe anyone is "overpaid". I'm not sure you have the economics background to discuss that last issue.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: propaganda

Conspiracy theory is a blanket expression to generalize anything or anyone that goes against any part of US policies. Its a cop out expression to quickly dismiss any such accusations and not face the issues. Corporate control of news is old hat. Its 15 minutes of fame has been and gone, time and again.

d

Actually you dismiss yourself pretty effectively. This is one of those "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't after me" statements. And the "corporate America controls everything" isn't a cop out. Grow up and join us here on Earth.

It's old hat to conspiracy theory.

OTB