More News Media Propaganda

[Ray Zee]

well i think we need to contain him by any means possible. we cant let him grow. the question that needs to be answered is what means do we use. war should be the last resort and used if thats all that will accomplish the task.
basically-- whats the hurry. he cant do any real damage right now.

[John Ho]

North Korea has not invaded another country under the current regime. That's really the issue here with Iraq. You have the same leader who authorized the Kuwait invasion and is looking to get even more powerful weaponry.

With all due respect, how you can't see this in relation to Germany is amazing. Germany was restricted in it's military buildup after World War I by Versailles. When Hitler came to power they defied the treaty and rearmed. The world did nothing. Doesn't this sound exactly like Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world?

I'm not saying war is necessarily the answer right now, but passing endless resolutions and using endless years of diplomacy without at least the credible threat of force sets a poor long term precedent. Part of the reason for invading Iraq now is to dissuade other nations from similar actions in the future.

Imagine in 10 yearsKim Jong Il in North Korea decides he wants to annex South Korea and the U.S. military no longer has a presence there. If Saddam or one of his sons is still in power, Kim Jong Il will know that if he is successful militarily either 1) he will retain control of South Korea or 2) a multinational force will drive his troops back (like Bush I in Desert Storm). Option 1 is good for him. Option #2 is neutral for almost everyone involved (except South Korea will be in shambles). Kim will know that the world community does not have the strength of will to overthrow his regime despite his aggression. So basically he is freerolling; Can't lose, might win. Either he doubles his country's size or things remain as is. Does he care about sanctions? He will live like a King either way.

To go back to Saddam, if we are seriously going to do nothing let's save ourselves the trouble and ask him to sign a contract that he won't invade anyone else or develop WMD but also put in the contract if he does we won't do anything militarily. That's basically what we are doing if we don't credibly threaten him with force. If the UN fails to act it will quickly lose what little relevance it has.

However, if the UN authorizes force and drives Saddam out of power or forces him to disarm openly then it's power and relevance are increased dramatically. And that would be a good thing. That would hopefully set a precedent that no country gets invaded without UN approval. Otherwise, the invading country will have it's government removed from power. This will never happen unless the UN shows it can take decisive actions if this precedent is proken.

[KDF]

"Other countries...Pakistan, China...economics". Not realistic arguments for or against this war. Its about a megalomaniac-psychopath-dictatorship that needs to give up the goods or get out of the way so we can contain the weapons-- not him. Oh, N. Korea?- same deal...we'll get to them too. But S.H. keeps hiding the weapons and naughty stuff and everyone knows it. Today's Powell-address didn't reveal that. He (S.H.)- won't use these weapons on the US any time soon (or Israel for that matter or he'll get dead fast.) The real threat (if anyone has been listening) is these weapons getting into worse hands! They may already be, in which case with the death and mayhem to come, you leftist-pacifist-hippie-pansies will celebrate the world's over-population problem solved!! Rejoice!!-- if you're alive at all. Then you'll stop and lament at the utter devastation and all say together- "Why didn't the President do anything about if he knew these things in advance?" -yes, sounds familiar.
We want the weapons and their components--all of them; not the oil, or his head on a platter-- the weapons! Then we will have some measure of peace for a while. Asking him nicely to: "Hand them over or you'll get a time-out!", hasn't worked for 12 years--now he needs a spanking. IMHO

[brad]

'and ask him to sign a contract that he won't invade anyone else or develop WMD but also put in the contract if he does we won't do anything militarily. '

well he asked permission to invade kuwait and we gave it to him. (april gladsby or however spell it. US ambassador)

UN is all crap ask mcarthur who the only reason his amphibiuos landing in korea during korean war was successful is because he bypassed UN chain command which he knew was giving his plans to communist north korea as soon as he formulated them.

if you dont realize at least the possibility that what youre parroting is propaganda then i hope youre young enough to be drafted and go get screwed up.

[Zeno]

Mr. Alger, this is the start of the fourth paragraph of your post:

"That media's near-exlusive concentration on Iraqi WMD while failing to point out simple, obvious and highly revealing contradictions testifies to the mainstream media's role as a propaganda outlet for the state."

A few sentences later in the same paragraph you make this statement (Italics are mine):


" (1) how can Iraq so directly affect our moral and material interests that slaughtering large numbers of innocent Iraqis is necessary?"


Who is engaging in propaganda now. You condem it in the first part of your paragraph and use it (to good effect, I must add) a few sentences later in the same paragraph.

This does not undermine your overall thesis, but there is the hint of a conflicting bias and moral tone to your post.

The flavor of your propaganda statement is that the war will be fought human vs human with one side completely innocent, the other completely gulity and bent only on one thing. Slaughter. What image does this invoke? A marine shooting at an Iraq soldier that is shooting back; or a marine gunning down a innocent child? I don't think I need to go into other details as you can deduce them on your own.


In addition, your last paragraph is full of very simplistic black and white statements. It is this or nothing etc. Period. Kind of like: It is either us or them or, your either for us or against us. Sound familiar?


-Zeno

[John Ho]

There's a lot of propaganda out there. I'm under no illusion our government doesn't spin things to their advantage. It's laughable we are talking about human rights violations as a reason to go after Iraq. But that doesn't change the fact the threat of force must be credible and Saddam's actions warrant such a threat. It's that simple.

[brad]

madeline albright stated on 60 minutes that 1/2 million dead iraqi children was an 'acceptable price to pay for stability in the region'.

lack of potable water, etc. , no medicine, etc. (ie, we bombed all their water treatment plants and then banned import of medicine and stuff).

so its not like we killed the kids. they probably wouldve turned into terrorists anyway. just like those evil jews in concentration camps probably woulve turned into pimps and usurous bankers anyway.

[MMMMMM]

Ray, I'm not going to seriously get involved in these threads right now, and I've always respected your posts and broad knowledge. But more I read, the more I become convinced that the threats posed by Iraq are very serious and rapidly growing. If nothing is actively done, soon organized terrorists will possess biological WMD along with the means to deliver them on our soil (and much of this will be courtesy of Iraq).

Containing Iraq is a great idea but Saddam is developing and producing these weapons even as inspections are going on. It's just a matter of time before the inevitable face-off must occur and the less WMD he possesses when this happens the better off everyone will be.

A NOTE TO OTHERS who are concerned about "media propaganda": you can read the WORLD on the Internet. Search, read, sift...rinse and repeat, and bookmark the most informative sites. You can't claim all you are exposed to is US propaganda when you can read from all over the world. And if all you guys read is just a few main outlets then that's your fault.

[brad]

'If nothing is actively done, soon organized terrorists will possess biological WMD along with the means to deliver them on our soil (and much of this will be courtesy of Iraq). '

i think i posted the australian article where a guy researching aging on mice changed a mousepox gene and it was like 100% lethal in 2 days or something.

gist of article was like it was so easy a high school class could do it.

whatever you think of it the biological weapons genie is out of the bottle. we'll have to see what happens.

[Chris Alger]

"The flavor of your propaganda statement is that the war will be fought human vs human with one side completely innocent, the other completely gulity and bent only on one thing. Slaughter. A marine shooting at an Iraq soldier that is shooting back; or a marine gunning down a innocent child?"

What image does the following evoke for you?

"One day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. ... this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

'There will not be a safe place in Baghdad,' said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan. 'The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before,' the official said."

CBS News, 1/24/3
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in537928.shtml

So the war in Iraq means making Baghdad a city of 4.8 million people without "a safe place" because the U.S. will drop between 600 to 800 cruise missiles on it in the first two days of the war. The report also refers to the obvious precendent, quoting Pentagon planner: "So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes."

According to a UN report I cited earlier, casualty estimates include hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Of course, the CBS report makes no reference to the estimated magnitude of civilian casualties and characteristically fails to include reactions from anti-war representatives. Instead, the report is typically confined within the morally neutral category of efficacy: the issue is whether it will work, not whether it can be justified from an elementary moral perspective. If CBS reported that "large numbers of Iraqi civilians will inevitably be slaughtered if the U.S. launches its war," I take it that you would find this to be unjustified propaganda.

If you seriously take issue with my prediction that the war means "slaughtering large numbers of innocent Iraqis," then maybe you can describe how the U.S. can invade and conquer Iraq as planned without doing so.

Or maybe it's my black-and-white description of what will happen that you're quibbling with, and would prefer some phrase like "signifant collateral effects adversely impacting non-military personnel?"