Is Dick Cheney high on drugs???

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

that comedy would mean they are bad at it, not good at it.

It would mean this one instance was transparent. My question was 'when did you recognize that the event was propaganda?' My point is that if a person doesn't immediately recognize their very bad propaganda as such, odds are that person isn't going to recognize their better shots either.

So...ummm....when did you realize the staged event was just some good ole propaganda? This is a rhetorical question, but if the answer is something like 'I've only recently learned that this was a staged army psy-op event?', then you're probably not paying close enough attention to some things.

I thought we'd been flying missions in Iraq and occasionally bombing stuff since the whole Kuwait thing.

yes we had -- in fact I think it's fair to say that Gulf War I never really ended, it just stopped getting much press.

but if we want to break the gulf war into two parts, I'd say that part 2 began in earnest in the spring of '02 -- by this time the decision to go to war had definitely been made and mobilizaiton efforts were in full effect. Like I said, I suspect the initial plan was to really roll things out in a big way by the early fall, but they hit some logistical snags and started with a slower, more covert type of rolling start instead.

lessee if I can find something.....it's been a while, and I'm working from memory.....ok, from our friends in great brit....

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war....

The Ministry of Defence figures, provided in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, show that despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September [2002] with a 100-plane raid.

...Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.

I think most people can agree, whether they supported the war or not, that 100 plane raids aimed at knocking out military installations are acts of war. (this was 100 planes on one day, and this sort of thing happened most days between September '02 and March of '03).

Bear in mind that this was happening before congress voted on their 'authorization of force' or whatever that nonsense was about and before Token Powell told his mountain of lies to the UN. We literally started the war before we started the debate about whether to go to war.

My point, bearing in mind that it's tough for me to prove a negative, is that you can scour the mainstream media, or any middle-of-the-road second tier kind of thing, and you'll never, ever, ever find one single contemporaneous statement that the US was at war with Iraq prior March of '03. You will find plenty of statements that read something like:

"Today US government officials worked diligently to convince Saddam not to cause a war...meanwhile US armed forces blasted the crap out of a bunch iraqis."

But these statements are absurd on their face, which is kind of the essence of propaganda -- to make the absurd reality. And I guess I should say that my larger point is that during the early stages of the Iraq war, we were like fish swimming in a sea of absurdities such as these. We were like fish who no longer noticed the water.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

So...ummm....when did you realize the staged event was just some good ole propaganda?

I assume that all such things have some element of stagecraft. The statue toppling looked like something supervised by the military. I kinda assumed that was the case because they were standing around, and it was a war zone, and militaries generally are in charge of anything they are standing around, especially in a war zone. The particular extent of staginess for the statue toppling was never too important to me because the only thing I ever got out of it was that Saddam had lost so much power that he couldn't stop it. That the toppling was psy-ops does not mean that Iraqis weren't happy to see it happen. If your stories are saying that there were no Iraqis that wanted the statue down, then that's another level of propaganda (and conspiracy theory).

You're description below was as an either-or sort of thing: either its a symbol of freedom (as was reported by breathless dolts) or it was staged by some mastermind with a baboon heart. I don't see it as an either or.

yes we had -- in fact I think it's fair to say that Gulf War I never really ended, it just stopped getting much press.

I know this because it was publicly reported. By the government. When they applied the word "war" is when they wanted us to start thinking of it as "our war," (ie, when they new we'd as individuals have to start making some sort of commitment to the endeavor). I don't see any problem with them starting to apply the word "war." If they didn't ever apply the word "war" (ie, if they didn't want us to start thinking of it as a war), then I'd have a big problem with them. If you want to think of the decision to start using the word "war" as nefarious propaganda, and belittle everyone and anyone who isn't initiated in the art of conspiracy theory, then so be it. It may be propaganda, it's necessary, and most people think of it as "spin" on one end and "lies" on the other. Id bet that most people would say that the government does indeed spin and lie when they present a case to the public.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

IYou're description below was as an either-or sort of thing: either its a symbol of freedom (as was reported by breathless dolts) or it was staged by some mastermind with a baboon heart. I don't see it as an either or.

I know you don't see it as either, but the funny thing is that it was both. It was, in fact:

a) a transparent staged event masterminded by a guy with a baboon heart (ok, maybe the army colonel that masterminded the event didn't have a baboon heart, but the point is the same); and

b) reported ad nauseum by breathless dolts as a monumental event in human history.

It's not either-or, it's both...this is the objective reality....that's what makes it interesting and illustative! Were it not so transparent, it would be understandable that more than a few talking heads in the US news played it up as monumentus. Had the news media presented it is an army psy-ops stage managed event, I could more easily dismiss it as trivia.

But it was both transparent and treated as an awe-inspiring event -- it was very Pravda-esque, in other words, and all that this implies.

(and most certainly, there isn't a middle ground between either-or...it wasn't sort of an army psy-op and it wasn't kind of reported faithfully by some of the media in the US and sceptically by others)

If they didn't ever apply the word "war" (ie, if they didn't want us to start thinking of it as a war), then I'd have a big problem with them.

Which is exactly what happened....

--the war started--then....
--the debate started--then and only then...
--we started calling the war a war because it's inappropriate to say that the US is at war before congress has discussed the matter.

Calling the war a war before we had any sort of a national debate (or the pretense thereof) would lead to all sorts of wrong thoughts about the lawless way our government really behaves (and the chief of the aim of propaganda is to prevent people from thinking the wrong thoughts).

^^^this is what happened. You can call it a crackpot conspiracy theory, but it's nonetheless what really happened.

This is a tough subject to cover...it's kind of like me dropping in from nowwhere and saying that the CPS used false pretenses, routinely acted in bad faith, violated the law and just generally behaved like asses when they grabbed children from monagamous parents, children which they knew to be healthy, well cared for and thoroughly unabused.

Of course that's ^^^ a crazy thing to say because we all know that the CPS protects kids and that fundy mormons diddle lot's of young girl. The problem I have is my lying eyes tell me it's true.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I know you don't see it as either, but the funny thing is that it was both. It was, in fact:

a) a transparent staged event masterminded by a guy with a baboon heart (ok, maybe the army colonel that masterminded the event didn't have a baboon heart, but the point is the same); and

b) reported ad nauseum by breathless dolts as a monumental event in human history.

and c) was an important event.
That you keep avoiding that, and that you misinterpreted my "either or" as an "either" really annoys me. You do a lot of propaganda to get your points across, and it's not needed here.

Which is exactly what happened....

--the war started--then....
--the debate started--then and only then...
--we started calling the war a war because it's inappropriate to say that the US is at war before congress has discussed the matter.

Military action was ongoing. They picked it up in preparation for war. Congress gave up their voice in declaring war decades ago.

Calling the war a war before we had any sort of a national debate (or the pretense thereof) would lead to all sorts of wrong thoughts about the lawless way our government really behaves (and the chief of the aim of propaganda is to prevent people from thinking the wrong thoughts).

blah, blah, black helicopters and mind control. It's easier, simpler, and more accurate to say that it would have confused the debate.

When Cuban and Co. say, "we love our team," do you get all bent out of shape because they love the team, or do you get all rant-filled 'cause they are lying to you, or are you happy they said it because it's better than publicly declaring, "we hate Dampier and are trying real hard to replace him" ?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

and c) was an important event. That you keep avoiding that...

sorry...I didn't realize you were saying the toppling of Saddam's Statue was an important event.

It wasn't an important event, it was a simple army psy-ops mission. I'm not avoiding the point, it's just that the event in and of itself wasn't of any significance other than as a piece of propaganda.

Military action was ongoing. They picked it up in preparation for war.

So....military actions which include dropping bombs on another country is not 'war', but preparation for war in your view? In my view dropping bombs on another country is war, but clearly that's a crazy way of looking at things.

It's easier, simpler, and more accurate to say that it would have confused the debate.

Yes, certainly the fact that we were already at war with iraq would have added an element of confusion to the debate of whether we should go to war. I can't argue with you there.

blah, blah, black helicopters and mind control.

I don't think black helicopters are relevant (or any other colored helicopters for that matter), but as for mind control....

Psychological Operations (PSYOP, PSYOPS) are techniques used by any set of groups to influence a target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior. ...The use of such euphemisms for what is in effect "mind control" is itself an example of psychological operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number of people to support something that they wouldn't normally support.

Yeah, mind control, call it whatever euphemism you might prefer. As Bernays said (approvingly)...

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised opinions and habits of the masses is an important element in democratic society.

It's an interesting thing to study and there's a bit more to it than a maverick owner telling white lies about his ham-fisted center.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

sorry...I didn't realize you were saying the toppling of Saddam's Statue was an important event.

It wasn't an important event, it was a simple army psy-ops mission. I'm not avoiding the point, it's just that the event in and of itself wasn't of any significance other than as a piece of propaganda.

as a marker for how much control we had, yes it was. "psy-ops" and "important event" are not in an either-or relationship. Edit: As a sign for how happy Iraqis were over the downfall of Saddam, who knows? There were probably a lot of Iraqis who were happy about it, and a lot who weren't. It's war.

So....military actions which include dropping bombs on another country is not 'war', but preparation for war in your view? In my view dropping bombs on another country is war, but clearly that's a crazy way of looking at things.

if it's all the same thing, then what's your beef? The US gov. let everyone know for a decade or so that they were doing this stuff in Iraq. Most people couldn't be bothered with the details cause they didn't think we were at war, and most people who knew didn't think of it as "war." And if the gov had been saying, "we're at war" all along, then they would have confused the matter greatly, because we weren't.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

As a sign for how happy Iraqis were over the downfall of Saddam, who knows?

I know.

This event that Reuters compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall involved a a rent-a-crowd of 50 or so Sadr city (mostly) teenaged boys in USMC sealed area in and around Firdos Square. I vividly recall one scene of some reporter with *throngs* of cheering Iraqis standing behind him. He was describing the jubilation when the camera panned to the left, revealing the *crowd* to be nothing more than 6 or 7 people and showing one dude standing off to the side, literally picking his nose.

(Not-too-surprisingly, the cameraman quickly returned his focus to the "action"....)

The event itself was no more monumental than a scene from Walker, Texas Ranger which uses some real-live local folks as stand-ins.

What makes the event something more than trivia (in my mind, at least) is the extent to which the free and independent watchdog media reported this as something monumental. These media outlets had boots on the ground. They could see what the scene really looked like. Why didn't one fairly prominent media outlet report something like, 'this is a small crowd of guys who were escorted into the square that by US tanks, and frankly it looks Army Psy-ops is running the show.'?

... if the gov had been saying, "we're at war" all along, then they would have confused the matter greatly, because we weren't.

We weren't at war in Iraq in the fall of 2002, yet we were repeatedly bombing Iraq in the fall of 2002...right?