More News Media Propaganda

[Chris Alger]

"Pakistan, except for it's conflict with India, has not fought with any other country under Musharraf."

Then how can you explain US support for Turkey when it invaded Cyprus, Indonesia while it invaded Timor, South Africa while it invaded Namibia, Israel when it invaded and colonized the West Bank? How can you explain support for Iraq while it engaged in its most flagrant act of aggression, the war against Iran? All of these incidents were grotesque violations of international law, roundly condemned by the UN, but supported, sometimes almost exclusively, by the US. (The Timor invasion occurred while President "This Will Not Stand" Bush was director of the CIA).

"But what is your alternative? Overthrow Pakistan as well?"

No. My alternative is for the U.S. to embrace a consistent policy of non-aggression enforced multilaterally with military force being used as a last resort and only to accomplish particular, specific objectives, rather than a blank-check "regime change."

"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."

Oh, please. Every time someone wants to justify war, they bring up Hitler and the Munich analogy. One size fits all: you just need a dictator and the prospect of war and, voila!, instant justification. Never mind that Hitler couldn't have been deterred by a nuclear superpower with more than a hundred times the amount of military might. Never mind that Iraq has less than 150 seviceable aircraft and a navy that consists of, according to the Center for Strartegic and International Studies, of "six obsolete Osa and Bogomol guided missile patrol craft and three obsolete Soviet inshore minesweepers." Get real.

Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons. Means exist short of war to prevent him from getting them. There is no dispute that many of his other weapons and facilities have been destroyed or deactivated. His potential remaining stockpiles of CBW's are a genuine issue, but that obviously is not what's driving US policy. Indeed, the US and US firms were instrumental in providing Iraq with the technology used to acquire them, but you don't see the political leadership or the media trying to hold anyone accountable for that Moreover, by using WMD as a pretext for invasion, every other country in the world with resources of value to the US would be well-advised to follow N. Korea's example and devleop them as fast as possible, which means that the proposed war with Iraq is actually counterproductive to the cause of limiting the development of WMD.

Do you seriously think Saddam is a threat to the US? If so, then why can't it he even shake off his "no-fly" zone? How can he threaten to invade his neighbors without air support? If he were to invade anyone, how could he avoid having his military and himself being eradicated instantly by the US? If he's such a threat to his neighbors, then why didn't they initiate the call for regime change? Indeed, why do his neighbors have to be brought kicking and screaming (and bribed) into a war process conceived by elite planners in the US? Why was overthrowing Iraq not even a debating point before 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

These are simple questions. If instead of demanding good answers to them you choose to accept the official justification that the US seeks no more than to defend itself and its worthy allies from hypothetical future aggression, then you are the one who's being naive.

[adios]

-Yes the media is manipulated IMO but I don't see them as willing partners in deception that often.

-I think appeasement is a valid concept.

- As I've posted before this situation with Iraq isn't just about WMD, there are economic and military ramifications IMO. Iraq has too much oil and military bases in Iraq are very inviting strategic alternatives. I'm not using the strategic reasons as a justification. What happens after Saddam is deposed is a question that the administration has not addressed adequately IMO.

- Saddam might abdicate in the face of certain death. I have no idea as to the odds of Saddam abdicating but it's something to consider.

[MMMMMM]

the "genie" isn't what's so important now: it's the mass production of these toxins, and the refinement into weaponized form (remember the very fine light anthrax spores in the letters which were made especially so as to become easily airborne and inhaled?), and the continuing Iraqi development of dispersal technologies for these weapons, which pose the growing dangers.

[John Ho]

I agree with you in part. The topic of removing Saddam should never have happened. The world should have overthrown his regime during the Gulf War.

But you can see how a lack of action leads to bigger problems in the future. Unless you don't believe the US position regarding the aluminum tubing made to high specifications, you are wrong to believe Saddam is not trying to develop nukes. It is certainly true he tried to develop them before. So the question is again, do you want to take the risk he develops them under the radar or do you remove the threat now?

[Zeno]

From the first line of the CBS propaganda piece you cited:

"(CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight. "

NO safe place for soldiers, military hardware, militay infrastructure etc. The image this invokes for me is the targeting of miltary warehouses, ammo depots, troop concentrations, military communications and transportation centers etc.

Can all this be done without killing Civilians? No it cannot. So Iraqi Civilians will be killed. Not slaughtered. Killed. You insist on using a very loaded and emotionally charged word for your own propaganda purposes.

In addition, to me, you are still engage in propaganda by implying that the US/British forces will deliberately target civilians. The gulf and afgan war show clearly that this is not the policy followed by these military forces. As in any conflict there are accidents, misshaps and yes, also deliberate atrocities, usually done by both sides but very seldom done on orders from superiors.

To me, your world view is very similar to that of Mr. Bush, it just differs on the political spectrum.

-Zeno

[jen]

"...still engage in propaganda by implying that the US/British forces will deliberately target civilians."

I don't think anyone's implying that the US deliberately kills civilians during wartime, but certainly there is a grave lack of regard for Iraqi lives as demonstrated by our military tactics. We fight from a distance using missiles in highly populated areas to save US soldiers at the expense of Iraqi civilians.

"So Iraqi Civilians will be killed. Not slaughtered. Killed."

Semantics. How many Iraqis must be killed in order for the term "slaughter" to apply? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

[hudini36]

Saddam is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. China and Pakistan are not.

[hudini36]

He is certainly not naive. He is biased and favors any Islamic interest over the interests of the West, but he is not naive.

[Jimbo]

Jen asked "Semantics. How many Iraqis must be killed in order for the term "slaughter" to apply? Thousands? Tens of thousands?" I would answer all of them, any left and they were simply innocent bystanders or collateral damage. Take your pick, after all it is semantics.

[Chris Alger]

You can quibble over whether civilian deaths caused by deliberate US acts will be "slaughtered" or merely "killed." The entire rest of the world watching the satellite feed from Aljazeera will know that the US devastated a yet another country without any credible pretext of self-defense in order to enlarge its political and economic might. They will properly view it as mass murder, and we should do the same.