Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (68546)	3/12/2003 10:25:11 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Here is an example of good propaganda that mixes enough truth with lies and mutes the important issues so as to persuade the reader towards the authors direction. Let's see: > Most Americans want Saddam Hussein disarmed by force. Most citizens of most other countries oppose war. This line takes as given the very premise that trivializes the issue. Most Americans do NOT want "Saddam Hussein disarmed by force". They simply want him disarmed and not a threat to themselves. They don't care if this is done by force or by prayer or by Martians from outer space. They just want peace in their lives just as everyone else in the world. There is no conflict of goals here. > all countries are acting out of the same basic human instinct: They are calculating the course likeliest to save their own skin. May seem reasonable, but again it is wrong in this context. Australia does not face any threats from Saddam, nor does Japan, nor does most of Europe. And yet you see them protesting against the invasion. What is more, countries that would be most in danger from Saddam, much more than US, are the ones who look forward to this invasion least favorably. So again, we are asked to take for granted what sounds reasonable but is factually wrong. > Americans, like just about everyone else, expect terrorism to increase after a war with Iraq breaks out. I am not sure if this point has been drilled into public's head. I'd say more Americans expect terrorism to decrease after removal of Saddam. In fact this has been one of the arguments the pro-war camp has made for regime change in Iraq. However, many CIA experts have said there is no terrorism link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The so called "mafia family" analogy doesn't have a shred of evidence to support itself. > But unlike the public in Canada, Europe and most other countries, a large number of Americans see Saddam as a direct threat to themselves My congratulations to the propaganda machine that can do so without a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact this is what media has achieved even though many CIA experts who should really know have voiced opinions to the contrary...btw the view presented by the author here is in direct violation of his analysis of population cohesiveness later on (i.e. melting pot vs 2nd class citizens). Having large unabsorbed Muslim populations should increase the threat of Saddam to them if in fact Saddam was sponsoring terrorism...and do not suggest that Muslims have taken over Europe and are holding major countries hostage to fear > The same drive to survive tells most Canadians, Europeans and others to keep their heads down. Wrong. The costs of opposing US are much higher than coming along to help Bush look like a world leader. It is not that they are afraid of Saddam or Al-Qaeda; it is that they are fearful of US. A long running poll (by Time?) showed that over 84% of the world sees the US as a greater threat than Iraq, North Korea, or even Al-Qaeda. This is a very big part of the opposition. Unfortunately, rather than reassure the world that America will not be a threat to them, we have a cowboy in office who goes around telling the world they do not matter. > Yet many recognize that Saddam is not risk free, even if they find his link to terrorism murky. Exactly. No body wants Saddam around. Which makes the failure of this administration so much greater. They have failed to make the case for which the world has a bias to begin with. > Americans are surprised at the failure of the world to act multilaterally against so clear a menace. They shouldn't be. Americans, more than most, proclaim the virtue of acting when it is in the American interest to do so, and of otherwise holding their peace. I guess this passage is meant for the cynics amongst us. Because I've talked with many who think America is out to do good whenever it can. Just the same, there is some truth to this passage. The problem is that it gives the wrong reasons. Americans can understand logic as well as anyone else. If the media bothered to actually discuss the issues honestly and in depth, Americans would not have been so perplexed. The mere fact that this is so, shows that media has been hiding crucial pieces of the argument. > Unlike North America, Europe is not a multicultural melting... True and this is a serious internal problem that will bite them in the rear hard. But what is not mentioned here, is that Europeans have a much clearer global perspectives than Americans. I was in Paris last year buying a suit, the shop keeper had no problems discussing African issues or naming who the mayor of Tehran was. Understanding the other side is a very big part of solving human issues. 99.9% of Americans would not even be able to tell you if Iraqi Kurds are Arabs or not...oh and I forgot to ask, why is it that these countries with large unabsorbed Muslim populations don't see the need to legislate incognito indefinite detentions and yet manage to catch terrorists, but here despite the "melting pot" effect we must have those laws and yet we are not catching any? > despite America's stated virtue of acting unilaterally, it has practiced multilateralism Again what is left out is that complaints are about unilateral policies. Pretty much all the multilateral actions named are trade agreements. How else could they be accomplished. And every instance of "multilateralism" by us means that someone else on the other side was participating in multilateralism too. This whole passage is nonsense. The complaint is not that we never do anything multilaterally. The complaint is that we do it multilaterally if we can, and ignore the world and do it unilaterally if we can't. > Now America will pursue Saddam without further illusion about the citizenry in Western countries I see, so now we are a world onto ourselves...so if we are not part of the West, which part of the world do we belong to? >...or about the United Nations Security Council, however it ultimately votes And I wonder why UN is becoming irrelevant...could it be because we are undermining it? > The two President Bushes were the only American presidents to ask the UN to take military action in 50 years; The others could not do so or they would have. Before Bush Sr. there was the cold war and most of the conflicts were proxy wars between US and USSR. So Kuwait was the only time this could be done and it was good PR to do so. I am glad Bush did that. But after him, there was no way Clinton could pull it off. It is not that he did not want to go to UN about Yugoslavia. It is that Russia would have vetoed it anyway, so there was no point. As for this Bush, illusions of grandeur clouded his judgment as to what he can and cannot pull off. It was a tactical mistake on his part. > an American president is unlikely to repeat the experience in the next 50 years It must be obvious that any president will want the support to back his actions, if he is sure he can get it. This is another way of saying an American president is unlikely to have the clout and international support to get UN approve his military agenda in the next 50 years. > Other UN institutions, such as UNESCO and UNDP, could also find themselves diminished. As could the World Bank, the IMF and other multilateral organizations that fail in future to give the United States full bang for its buck. Exactly why Bush is doing more harm towards creation of international bodies that can actually make the world a better place. We share this globe with the rest of the world; we do not own it. I could make a good case that by actually abiding the UN, strengthening its position (rather than working hard to diminish it), and perhaps bringing about some positive structural changes to it, we do ourselves much better good than this dogged obsession with military force in Iraq. > After the War on Terrorism, the United States will again help rebuild the foes it conquers, but it may be less charitable with some of its friends. "Those who are not with us are against us," President Bush said... Yes, the world knows that and they still feel compelled to take a stance, so why is that? Sun Tzu