More News Media Propaganda

[Mark Heide]

After I got home from the dentist today, I turned on the tube and watched ABC and BBC news. Today on ABC they broadcast the interview done by a british journalist with Saddam Hussain. Saddam clearly stated that he has no weapons of mass distruction and no ties to Al Qaeda. That was expected. The same interview was broadcast on BBC. What ABC did today was go to the Pentagon and ask Rumsfeld his reaction. Rumsfeld stated that Saddam has stated that the evidence Powell will present tomorrow is false. What surprises me is that Saddam did not mention any of this in the interview. So, is Rumsfeld already putting words in Saddam's mouth. Anyway, the whole point here is our government using the press to influence opinion. Even if Saddam had some weapons of mass destruction, the inspectors would find it and have most of it destroyed like in the past. But, is that a reason for a super power like the US to destroy a nation. Other countries have weapons of mass distruction like China. But, are we going to fight a war with them?

There are other reasons why the US wants this war and it has not much to do with weapons of mass distruction. Like Bush has already said he wants regime change, and I believe that it could only be for economic reasons, not to give Iraqis freedom from Saddam. This has always been the policy of the US in the past, so you only have to look at what went on in Vietnam.

Anyway, my prediction is that the US will start this war with public support from its citizens. I'm sure that Powell's presentation will be carefully crafted to influence additional public support for the war.

If the US succeeds in ousting Saddam and his regime, who will be their to take its place? Are we going in the same direction again like we did with Iran?

All comments welcome.

Mark

[scalf]

[img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] gooood points mark...root canal???lol....anyway..maybe the u.s. will install the shah jr. boss in iraq...make an alliance with the kurds up north...then take over iran in holy unification award..and supply u.s, with cheap oil....????just a suggestion..lol..gl [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/heart.gif[/img]

[Jimbo]

Mark wrote "Rumsfeld stated that Saddam has stated that the evidence Powell will present tomorrow is false."

Have you considered the fact that Rumsfeld may have meant that Saddam said this outside the particular interview you watched? In fact I remember hearing that he or his prime minister said exactly this the same day it was announced that Powell would address the United Nations. This was over a week ago, long before said interview by the British journalist.

[John Ho]

Saddam and his lieutenants have already stated multiple times in public that they have no WMD and are not hindering the inspection team. So by that rationale they are already calling Powell a liar when he presents contrary evidence.

As for the inspection process, I seriously doubt the ability of inspectors to find WMD if Iraq wishes to hide already existing stockpiles. If you triple the number of inspectors, as France suggested today, it will be far easier for Iraq to have an informant in the group if they don't have one already.

At first I was totally against a war. However, it's clear after watching the UN members this must be seriously considered. I agree in principle with using inspectors to contain Iraq's ability to develop more WMD and hopefully find his existing ones. This is low risk and a lower cost than going to war. However, the UN has ignored Iraq's violations for years. What is to say that if military force is not used in the near future that the UN will be willing to use force in say 3 years if Iraq kicks the inspectors out again? I seriously question the ability of the UN as a whole to make these tough decisions. Remember, they have known Iraq has been violating their resolutions for years and done nothing about it until the Bush administration pushed for it (only after 9/11 mind you).

While the Bush administration may have other motives, it's clear Iraq is different from China or any other non-allied country with WMD. Iraq has been at war with 2 of it's neighbors under Hussein, Iran and Kuwait. Iraq was clearly the aggressor against Kuwait and most of the evidence shows the same for the war with Iran. On the other hand, China has done a great deal of posturing towards Taiwan but so far has not crossed the line into true action against them or any other nation. It is fair to say they, by their actions, are a peaceful nation. North Korea may be a strange and disturbing regime, but they have not made war under their current regime. India and Pakistan fought constantly with each other before they both achieved nuclear capability; But this fighting was restricted to Kashmir and only directed at each other. They have not shown the propensity to invade other countries as a way of achieving regional dominance, which clearly Iraq has done.

Comparing Iraq to other nations with WMD is not credible. I am not sure war is the best option, but certainly history has shown that militiristic regimes should be kept in check rather than allowed to balloon to a world power.

[Chris Alger]

"it's clear Iraq is different from China or any other non-allied country with WMD"

How? For example, Pakistan is a dictatorship with an appalling human rights record and nuclear weapons. It is haven for Islamic fundamentalism. Its state security services have strong ties to international terrorism, including Al Quaeda, whose leader might be harbored in Pakistan. Terrorists operating in Pakistan have murdered Americans. It was the Taliban's most significant political and economic supporter.

Yet Pakistan is allied with the U.S. Instead of resolutions, threats and sanctions the U.S. has provided uninterrupted support for Pakistani for decades, just as it did when Saddam was "our" guy but invading neighbors, gassing Kurds, developing WMD and all the things that make him such a criminal now. The only real difference is that Saddam no longer serves the interests that dominate U.S. foreign policy, but Pakistan does. For most Americans, the distinction is arbitrary. But because the distinction has been made by the state, the dominant media messages (now) are why Iraq is bad, with very little comparatively about Pakistan or other US-supported countries with comparable and even worse records. Thus, the media passivley broadcasts Bush's sanctimonious nonsense about the primacy of UN resolutions and international law, with hardly a mention that the most flagrant UN resolution violators are U.S. clients Israel and Turkey.

It takes little imagination to consider how the media messages and images would be reversed if the U.S. were courting Saddam to help it topple Pakistan's government. In fact, you don't have to imagine it at all. Just look at the sparse negative coverage of Iraq when it was at war with Iran, despite its flagrant development of WMD, appalling human rights record, cross-border aggression, and even the killing of U.S. sailors abord the USS Stark. Not only was there no discussion about the need to go to war with Iraq, policy makers defended their support for Saddam.

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. The corporate press is no more likely to depart from the official line and script (e.g., the only basic concern of U.S. policiy makers is whether Iraq has WMD in violation of Secuirty Council dictate, and if it does, war is necessary, as in "we've always been at war with Oceania") than it is to address the real questions that almost all Americans have: (1) how can Iraq so directly affect our moral and material interests that slaughtering large numbers of innocent Iraqis is necessary? (2) given the examples of Turkey, Indonesia, Central America, Pakistan and pre-Kuwait Iraq, what guarantees exist that post-war Iraq will be better for its people and the rest of the world than it is now?

This war, which is utterly inevitable, has nothing to do with WMD, terrorism or aggression (except ours), and everything to do with bringing Iraq back under the control of the U.S. in order to project our imperial might and improve our access to and control over the resources and markets of a vital economic region. You know, mass muirder for money and power, like the mafia writ large.

[Ikke]

[jen]

[John Ho]

There's a big difference between Pakistan and Iraq. Pakistan, except for it's conflict with India, has not fought with any other country under Musharraf. It may be a hotbed of "Islamic" extremism and may have supported the Taliban before 9/11 but that is all irrelevant. They did the right thing in turning on the Taliban after they refused to hand over Bin Laden and the Al Queda leadership.

I do think it's laughable that Powell brought up human rights abuses at the UN. I agree with you that this is not a serious consideration on our part. But you are off base comparing Iraq's regime to Pakistan.

As for Pakistan's links to terrorism - the fact is the leader of Pakistan is clearly doing a great deal to combat the terrorists. He faces tremendous pressure at home since there are quite a number of Taliban and Al Quaeda supporters in his country - including people in the military and government.

But what is your alternative? Overthrow Pakistan as well? That will do nothing to change the minds of the people of Pakistan. If anything, it will inflame the already tense situation further. Even a military occupation would probably not work.

On the other hand, if you do nothing about Iraq and pretend they are not a threat we will walk down the same path Europe did with Hitler. Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons or bio weapons with long range missiles. With all due respect, this is the great problem with your way of thinking. Like all people, you do not like war or conflict. We all agree on this. However, if you leave a problem like this to fester you will be confronted with a greater danger down the road. So the question is, do we consider taking action now at a smaller cost or run the risk of a huge conflict 5-10 years from now? You want to close your eyes and hope this problem goes away. It won't. If Clinton or the 1st Bush had handled this problem we would not be where we are now.

[ripdog]

I think that what the hurry is, is that we want the oil fields and we need to get rid of him before he gets nuclear capability. Imagine how we'd be treating him now if he had nukes. Probably more along the lines of the way we're dealing with North Korea--diplomacy. Having the U.S. exposed as the prototypical bully, willing to "stand up" to the weak sisters of the world while we give nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia a free pass would be quite embarrassing. Better stomp this fire out before it turns into an inferno.

[andyfox]

"Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons or bio weapons with long range missiles. . .if you leave a problem like this to fester you will be confronted with a greater danger down the road."

Sometimes I think as much damage may have been done by Munich being used as an exemplar than was actually done by what happened there. So many times in my life I've heard the example of Hitler used is situations where the comparison had little relevance. The situation in the 1930s and Germany's place in the world then is scarcely related to the world of 2002 and Iraq's place in that world.

War is not the answer to the question of what to do about every tyrant. We did not invade the Soviet Union when it was run by Stalin, even when we had an overwhelming preponderance of power and when tensions were at their highest in the late 1940s. We do not propose to invade North Korea now. Not all people who oppose war are closing their eyes and wishing the problem will go away.