Changing the reasons for war once again

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
HJD1

I believe in the concept that all media everywhere has an agenda but, the primary one is profit. The media will deliver what the audience wants. Media will then seek to dispense the biased view of their ownership's position. Friendly Media are used by the governments to communicate the agenda the government wishes communicated. To the extent this dispensement is a true agenda so is the propaganda and conversely so. To the extent the media is unfriendly toward the government so to is the propaganda. So... what is left for the readership to distill is usually nothing but what they want to hear anyway. Not many listen well to opposing views or simply scoff and change the channel.

I mostly agree, but the point is, that can be said about the media of any free country. So why is it the contention of some that only Americans are brainwashed?

It's not black and white, but Americans in general are more likely to rely on television as their primary source of news. Also in general, American televison news is much more superficial than other countries, packaging news in entertaining sound bites instead of offering depth. Finally, Americans generally spend less time following the news, and, compared to other countries, disproportionately focus on local and regional news at the expense of international news. The result is that Americans are generally not as well-informed about current events as our peers overseas. This makes us more susceptible to manipulation.

But let me say it again -- these are generalizations. It obviously varies by individual and by country.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
HJD1

I believe in the concept that all media everywhere has an agenda but, the primary one is profit. The media will deliver what the audience wants. Media will then seek to dispense the biased view of their ownership's position. Friendly Media are used by the governments to communicate the agenda the government wishes communicated. To the extent this dispensement is a true agenda so is the propaganda and conversely so. To the extent the media is unfriendly toward the government so to is the propaganda. So... what is left for the readership to distill is usually nothing but what they want to hear anyway. Not many listen well to opposing views or simply scoff and change the channel.

I mostly agree, but the point is, that can be said about the media of any free country. So why is it the contention of some that only Americans are brainwashed?

It's not black and white, but Americans in general are more likely to rely on television as their primary source of news. Also in general, American televison news is much more superficial than other countries, packaging news in entertaining sound bites instead of offering depth. Finally, Americans generally spend less time following the news, and, compared to other countries, disproportionately focus on local and regional news at the expense of international news. The result is that Americans are generally not as well-informed about current events as our peers overseas. This makes us more susceptible to manipulation.

But let me say it again -- these are generalizations. It obviously varies by individual and by country.

Seems more like wide speculation on most points.

I will agree that many Americans are more involved and interested in what happens in the States than overseas. The reasons for that are obvious, have been stated before and shouldn't need to be stated again.

 

[Moonbeam]

While all these generalizations about media and indoctrination are valid and a feedback loop exists, the point I wish to emphasize is that where there is a French box and an American box, like religion, you have these only truths out there. How does a rational mind espouse the indoctrination of his own country without laughing at himself. Learning is unlearning, the realization that everything you believe is cabbage planted there by your experiences, most of them inaccessible in the unconscious. Wasn't it in this way that Socrates realized the truth. He was the wisest man because he knew he knew nothing. How can anybody know who has not experienced the collapse of everything they know. The unexamined life is not worth living and were does that examination take you, but to the realization of the emptiness of opinion and it's emotional root. We are all the same, the same black board on which is writ our lives. You can identify with the story or you can realize your deeper self as that empty board. Reduced to nothing, you are left with what you are. And what a surprise that is.

Identification is the mind killer for it arises out of fear.

"Only love can break your heart, only love can mend it again."

 

[Moonbeam]

It's not black and white, but Americans in general are more likely to rely on television as their primary source of news. Also in general, American televison news is much more superficial than other countries, packaging news in entertaining sound bites instead of offering depth. Finally, Americans generally spend less time following the news, and, compared to other countries, disproportionately focus on local and regional news at the expense of international news. The result is that Americans are generally not as well-informed about current events as our peers overseas. This makes us more susceptible to manipulation.

But let me say it again -- these are generalizations. It obviously varies by individual and by country.
---------------------------------
This seems to have a satisfyingly low cabbage to sense ratio to me.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
While all these generalizations about media and indoctrination are valid and a feedback loop exists, the point I wish to emphasize is that where there is a French box and an American box, like religion, you have these only truths out there. How does a rational mind espouse the indoctrination of his own country without laughing at himself. Learning is unlearning, the realization that everything you believe is cabbage planted there by your experiences, most of them inaccessible in the unconscious. Wasn't it in this way that Socrates realized the truth. He was the wisest man because he knew he knew nothing. How can anybody know who has not experienced the collapse of everything they know. The unexamined life is not worth living and were does that examination take you, but to the realization of the emptiness of opinion and it's emotional root. We are all the same, the same black board on which is writ our lives. You can identify with the story or you can realize your deeper self as that empty board. Reduced to nothing, you are left with what you are. And what a surprise that is.

Identification is the mind killer for it arises out of fear.

"Only love can break your heart, only love can mend it again."

Once you have done that then you can believe that American pilots were told to bomb warlords in Afghanistan to get them to lower the "price" to run an oil pipeline through their lands.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
While all these generalizations about media and indoctrination are valid and a feedback loop exists, the point I wish to emphasize is that where there is a French box and an American box, like religion, you have these only truths out there. How does a rational mind espouse the indoctrination of his own country without laughing at himself. Learning is unlearning, the realization that everything you believe is cabbage planted there by your experiences, most of them inaccessible in the unconscious. Wasn't it in this way that Socrates realized the truth. He was the wisest man because he knew he knew nothing. How can anybody know who has not experienced the collapse of everything they know. The unexamined life is not worth living and were does that examination take you, but to the realization of the emptiness of opinion and it's emotional root. We are all the same, the same black board on which is writ our lives. You can identify with the story or you can realize your deeper self as that empty board. Reduced to nothing, you are left with what you are. And what a surprise that is.

Identification is the mind killer for it arises out of fear.

"Only love can break your heart, only love can mend it again."

Once you have done that then you can believe that American pilots were told to bomb warlords in Afghanistan to get them to lower the "price" to run an oil pipeline through their lands.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

 

[Moonbeam]

Once you have done that then you can believe that American pilots were told to bomb warlords in Afghanistan to get them to lower the "price" to run an oil pipeline through their lands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
------------------------------------
I gather from your laughter and the characterization of that situation that you are a victim of hearsay and privy to nothing regarding the surrounding circumstances of that subject. Clearly you know nothing about what your talking but maybe think you do. Drunk on the smell of somebody else?s cork?

edit: Well well well, I missed seeing etech's post, Ultra Quiet. My appology for thinking you were carrying somebody elses water. The rest stands.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems like the heat from the Weapons of Missing Destruction fiasco is causing the appologist for liars to invent new sophistication in their rationalizations. I just heard Senator Dodd? or some Republican senator proclaim the novel inventory on demand theory. It seems that Iraq could, at a mament's notice switch from producing baby formula to nuclear weapons. They had an "Intellectual Capability" to make WMD so we were justified in taking them out. Watch out Monsanto. I guess when you're guilty of murder it's not going to be easy to get a confession, especially when you're a Hypocrite Republican President of Character.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Once you have done that then you can believe that American pilots were told to bomb warlords in Afghanistan to get them to lower the "price" to run an oil pipeline through their lands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
------------------------------------
I gather from your laughter and the characterization of that situation that you are a victim of hearsay and privy to nothing regarding the surrounding circumstances of that subject. Clearly you know nothing about what your talking but maybe think you do. Drunk on the smell of somebody else?s cork?

Are you privy to info that we are not concerning the "lies" you say Bush is telling? Who is the victim on hearsay? Who knows nothing about what they are talking?

I suggest you look at the evidence again before you spew accusations about lying. 12 years of worldwide acknowledgement that Saddam had WMD. Care to call the UN inspectors liers? Would you care to call Clinton a lier too?
Please be thorough in your investigation of the facts - we wouldn't want to have to catch you in a lie

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Seems like the heat from the Weapons of Missing Destruction fiasco is causing the appologist for liars to invent new sophistication in their rationalizations. I just heard Senator Dodd? or some Republican senator proclaim the novel inventory on demand theory. It seems that Iraq could, at a mament's notice switch from producing baby formula to nuclear weapons. They had an "Intellectual Capability" to make WMD so we were justified in taking them out. Watch out Monsanto. I guess when you're guilty of murder it's not going to be easy to get a confession, especially when you're a Hypocrite Republican President of Character.

Nuclear to baby formula? Are you high? There have been no such claims. Here on earth there is(and has been for a while) a theory about the "just in time" program.

You are doing exactly what you accuse Bush of - purposely misrepresenting facts(ie lying ).:|

CkG

PS - Dodd is a Democrat

 

[Moonbeam]

Nobody wants you to mischaracterize the debate either, CADdy. Did Clinton, the UN, or any other country use WMD as a lie to go to war. There is a great deal of difference between having concerns that Iraq might be building a WMD threat and attacking them without a smoking gun and for totally different, undisclosed reasons. That point should be obvious to anybody engaged in a real debate instead of a frenzied need to deny.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam Did Clinton, the UN, or any other country use WMD as a lie to go to war.

Be carefull

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Nuclear to baby formula? Are you high? There have been no such claims. Here on earth there is(and has been for a while) a theory about the "just in time" program.

You are doing exactly what you accuse Bush of - purposely misrepresenting facts(ie lying ).
---------------------------------------
Look up the function of hyperbole as an adjunct to sarcasm. Your literalness is frightening.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nuclear to baby formula? Are you high? There have been no such claims. Here on earth there is(and has been for a while) a theory about the "just in time" program.

You are doing exactly what you accuse Bush of - purposely misrepresenting facts(ie lying ).
---------------------------------------
Look up the function of hyperbole as an adjunct to sarcasm. Your literalness is frightening.

Ah yes, typical.... but....but...but... I wasn't serious

Oh and about Clinton using WMD as to....why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

<snip>
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
</snip>
<Another snip>
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
</Another snip>
<yet another>
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
</yet another>

Hmmm....

I think I could use every quote on that page


Now I ask, where was the outrage back in 98? Hmm....

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

As to etech's ejaculatory ejoke: "Once you have done that then you can believe that American pilots were told to bomb warlords in Afghanistan to get them to lower the "price" to run an oil pipeline through their lands.", he refers to a post in which I reported on something that I heard on the radio. Apparently there is a book by two French authors who claim that some portion of the 23 thousand bombs we dropped on Afghanistan were dropped on warlords who were holding up the Unocal Trans-Afghan pipeline for protection money, and this was mentioned on a radio program I heard. One might think from etech's comment that the pilots knew they were doing this. If there's any truth to this report, that would not be so.

The humorous part was that etech accused me of being a traitor, of aiding and abetting the enemy, I think it was, by undermining the faith of the American people in their government, the typical anti-American attitude of the three monkeys. If I have this wrong, etech, perhaps you can clarify. Confusion of the messenger and the message is as ancient as man, but it remains one of our most absurd habits.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Care to hear the words instead of read them?

Click to hear Clinton's "big lie"
full text
Buahahaha!

"With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly...."-Clinton

"...and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."-Clinton

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nuclear to baby formula? Are you high? There have been no such claims. Here on earth there is(and has been for a while) a theory about the "just in time" program.

You are doing exactly what you accuse Bush of - purposely misrepresenting facts(ie lying ).
---------------------------------------
Look up the function of hyperbole as an adjunct to sarcasm. Your literalness is frightening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah yes, typical.... but....but...but... I wasn't serious-
-------------------------------
If you weren't serious then I wasn't purposely misrepresenting facts(i.e. Lying)

 

[Moonbeam]

Might have been Bond.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nuclear to baby formula? Are you high? There have been no such claims. Here on earth there is(and has been for a while) a theory about the "just in time" program.

You are doing exactly what you accuse Bush of - purposely misrepresenting facts(ie lying ).
---------------------------------------
Look up the function of hyperbole as an adjunct to sarcasm. Your literalness is frightening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah yes, typical.... but....but...but... I wasn't serious-
-------------------------------
If you weren't serious then I wasn't purposely misrepresenting facts(i.e. Lying)

The eye roll infers sarcasm And yes now rereading your original post - you left yourself enough wiggle room, so I'll let that pass. But now as to the rest of the subject....care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?
---------------------------
Probably because of his wife.

 

[Moonbeam]

PS. Rolling eyes imply sarcasm, but actually what they imply to me is ignorance and a lack of capacity to formulate a cogent response. Not always, maybe, but often enough that I avoid them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?
---------------------------
Probably because of his wife.

I'd accept that

Ready to conceed WMD yet?
or do you need proof that the UN said he had them and used them?

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?
---------------------------
Probably because of his wife.

I'd accept that

Ready to conceed WMD yet?
or do you need proof that the UN said he had them and used them?

CkG

You keep saying that the UN admitted that Iraq had WMD. This wasn't or isn't the case. The UN's position on Iraq's WMD can be characterized as "we don't know if they do or do not have any WMD."
The UN was never sure Iraq still had WMD or the means to produce and deliver them. That's what the inspections regime was for. Bush and his cronies were the ones that were so sure they were right. Quit trying to place blame on the UN - they weren't the ones foaming at the mouth for war.
Take a look at this link. It details all of the claims made by the Bush admin. and how the actual UN evidence didn't really back up their claims (and US intelligence that was ignored b/c it didn't support Bush's story).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?
---------------------------
Probably because of his wife.

I'd accept that

Ready to conceed WMD yet?
or do you need proof that the UN said he had them and used them?

CkG

You keep saying that the UN admitted that Iraq had WMD. This wasn't or isn't the case. The UN's position on Iraq's WMD can be characterized as "we don't know if they do or do not have any WMD."
The UN was never sure Iraq still had WMD or the means to produce and deliver them. That's what the inspections regime was for. Bush and his cronies were the ones that were so sure they were right. Quit trying to place blame on the UN - they weren't the ones foaming at the mouth for war.
Take a look at this link. It details all of the claims made by the Bush admin. and how the actual UN evidence didn't really back up their claims (and US intelligence that was ignored b/c it didn't support Bush's story).

So the UN doesn't recognize this? I might conceed that the UN hasn't outright confirmed or denied their existance, but explain the VX reports. One could reasonably draw the conclusion that VX degradation products were used to ...?

Aluminum tubes? Hmm...who was our "intelligence" source? Hmmm....

But anyway, if you claim that Iraq didn't/doesn't have WMD then why did/does Clinton get a free pass on "lying"?

I will put the burden of proof at the feet of the UN. They are the ones who failed for 12 years to force Iraq into compliance. Their resolutions, their burden of proof. Our actions of 1998 and of today are a direct result of their resolutions. They couldn't get the proof(either way) from Saddam. We stopped short of taking Saddam out because of the UN, the UN failed, we finish the job - end of story.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
care to enlighten us to why Clinton "lied"?
---------------------------
Probably because of his wife.

Gee, I thought he lied when he lied about lying but, he determined, I suppose, that his is is is and their is is is too. So who or whom is right is no longer an issue.