USA's Propaganda

[Anvil]

I believe that the US has been using propaganda very frequently as of late. Here's what the US has been saying for the past while: (Please read this whole post before replying, otherwise you may get the wrong idea.)

The "Axis of Evil" (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya and Syria. Cuba, Libya and Syria have been added more recently.) are deliberately seeking to obtain chemical or biological weapons. The US expect to work with countries such as Russia and China in targetting these countries and stopping the production or the means of obtaining WMDs. "States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets," (President Bush, "Beyond the Axis of Evil" speech)

Now tell me, how is that not propaganda? I know this thread might get a bit heated, but I'm curious to hear from an intelligent community, of their thoughts on these 'allegations' against this, "Axis of Evil".

(NOTE: I'm sorry in advanced for any offence I may have made against the US, but I'm sure most of this community should have the maturity to overlook it and hopefully discuss their opinions on the matter. I'd like to refrain from people telling me that I'm wrong, etc., without at least producing some support for your arguement.)

 

[SoundMaster]

This statement is more of the U.S.'s current "mission statement" than it is propaganda. There's really no hidden ambiguity in that statement.

But, overall, yes the U.S. propaganda machine has been running at full-steam-ahead for quite some time now.

 

[Heavenscent]

I've been wondering lately: Do they still broadcast GI Joe in America?

 

[Deepest Green]

"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets," (President Bush, "Beyond the Axis of Evil" speech)

Now tell me, how is that not propaganda?

That doesn't really match the definition of propaganda. If he had said "We need to attack Iran because they are developing a nuclear weapon and plan to use it against us", now that would be propaganda. Which Bush probably has said at some point.

 

[infoterror]

That doesn't really match the definition of propaganda. If he had said "We need to attack Iran because they are developing a nuclear weapon and plan to use it against us", now that would be propaganda. Which Bush probably has said at some point.

Your definition of propaganda seems to be limited artificially.

 

[AsModEe]

limited artificially... wtf?

 

[Deepest Green]

Your definition of propaganda seems to be limited artificially.

Sorry, I don't speak anus.com.

 

[Justin S.]

Sorry, I don't speak anus.com.

Its two words, and very straightforward.

Your definition of "propaganda" is not thought out rigorously, and is "limited" by your "artifical" (vs actual, or essential) bounding of the idea.

 

[Deepest Green]

Its two words, and very straightforward.

Your definition of "propaganda" is not thought out rigorously, and is "limited" by your "artifical" (vs actual, or essential) bounding of the idea.

I am aware of what he meant. I just didn't feel like responding to his pointless post.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The Project for the New American Century is a project that has led to many conspiracy theories. "Their priniciples are now the the governing foreign and military policy of the Bush administration - a plan combining US military forces based around the world with a doctrine of pre-emptive war and the development of new nuclear weapons."

The people behind PNAC became prominent members of the Bush administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton, etc.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US was the only superpower and they formulated a programme to keep it that way.

"After the first Gulf war, Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for policy, drafted a defense planning document that laid out the core ideas of what was to become the Project for the New American Century's vision. It was a strategy of maintaining and strengthening unchallenged US military superiority against a potential future superpower rival and against unrest around the world, through pre-emption rather than containment and unilateral military action rather than multilateral".

Bush senior administration rejected it as too radical, but Bush junior took it on.

"From the beginning the project was obsessed with Iraq." They urged Clinton (then president - 1998) by letter to remove Sadam from power.
A report written by PNAC in 2000 specifically sites the Persian gulf "the United States has for decades sort to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Over the long term, Iran may prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."

"The report itself admitted that the process of accomplishing this transformation was 'likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor'".

The 9-11 attack fitted the bill nicely.

Because the project will not allow a rival superpower to exist, this would have implications for policy towards China and the European Union.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

 

[Deepest Green]

The Project for the New American Century is a project that has led to many conspiracy theories. "Their priniciples are now the the governing foreign and military policy of the Bush administration - a plan combining US military forces based around the world with a doctrine of pre-emptive war and the development of new nuclear weapons."

The people behind PNAC became prominent members of the Bush administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton, etc.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US was the only superpower and they formulated a programme to keep it that way.

"After the first Gulf war, Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for policy, drafted a defense planning document that laid out the core ideas of what was to become the Project for the New American Century's vision. It was a strategy of maintaining and strengthening unchallenged US military superiority against a potential future superpower rival and against unrest around the world, through pre-emption rather than containment and unilateral military action rather than multilateral".

Bush senior administration rejected it as too radical, but Bush junior took it on.

"From the beginning the project was obsessed with Iraq." They urged Clinton (then president - 1998) by letter to remove Sadam from power.
A report written by PNAC in 2000 specifically sites the Persian gulf "the United States has for decades sort to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Over the long term, Iran may prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."

"The report itself admitted that the process of accomplishing this transformation was 'likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor'".

The 9-11 attack fitted the bill nicely.

Because the project will not allow a rival superpower to exist, this would have implications for policy towards China and the European Union.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Thanks for the links, very interesting. I especially liked this one:

"Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space"

Outrageous. Well I guess we can kiss our loved ones goodbye.

 

[infoterror]

The worst propaganda is from the independent media. They don't support government, but echo its basic philosophy, plus drama.

 

[Hubster]

A country run by an extremist Christian is more dangerous than anything that an Islamic extremist can contoct in my opinion:

Through history, the Christians assimilated and destroyed, where as the Islamic Moors conquered, but respected other beliefs.

I feel todays capitalism is a by-product of Christian destruction in ages past, now mutated into a war over oil and being carried firmly into the 21 century by the Bush administration.

The star spangled banner has finally become a beacon of constraint and death, George Orwell's vision of war is now firmly in place.

Goodbye, freedom.

 

[derek]

The worst propaganda is from the independent media. They don't support government, but echo its basic philosophy, plus drama.

Yes, but supposing one keeps that in mind, does independent media not become quite useful? I think having a plethora of sources to gain information from is best, then the rational mind can decide what to believe and what to ignore.

 

[Hubster]

I think having a plethora of sources to gain information from is best, then the rational mind can decide what to believe and what to ignore.

Agreed. But what to do if the sources themselves are corrupted?

 

[derek]

Agreed. But what to do if the sources themselves are corrupted?

I suppose we can only try to be aware. I think infoterror made a very interesting point, but I still regard independent media as important, providing one can distinguish the truth from the propaganda.

I'd agree with him insomuch as I think independent media enables folks into revolt through drama, in very much the same way mass media can subdue people into silence/vegetative agreement.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes, but supposing one keeps that in mind, does independent media not become quite useful? I think having a plethora of sources to gain information from is best, then the rational mind can decide what to believe and what to ignore.

Who owns and runs nearly all the newspapers? http://www.rense.com/general38/brits.htm
And don't forget the need to please the corporations who pay for advertising.

 

[derek]

Who owns and runs nearly all the newspapers? http://www.rense.com/general38/brits.htm
http://americandefenseleague.com/media1.htm


And don't forget the need to please the corporations who pay for advertising.

I referred to a wide variety of sources, not just British forms of media. When I say "plethora" I mean the internet, TV news, newspapers, web-forums etc etc. Surely, you cannot claim they are all under Jewish control?

 

[Hubster]

Who owns and runs nearly all the newspapers? http://www.rense.com/general38/brits.htm
And don't forget the need to please the corporations who pay for advertising.

*sigh*

Norsemaiden, once again you are on your anti-Jewish crusade. Do you care to elaborate on this? It is a recurring pattern.

 

[Norsemaiden]

*sigh*

Norsemaiden, once again you are on your anti-Jewish crusade. Do you care to elaborate on this? It is a recurring pattern.

I will not elaborate on it because it is uncomfortable for people. It is not a crusade to point out that certain people own the media. If they were Christians it would be just as bad, or if they were Sikhs, or Eskimos, but why should we pretend they are not biased? May be they have all our best interests in mind, and we should be grateful to them. I'm not making a judgement, only an accurate and relevant observation. Why should I not do so, if it is true? ENOUGH ABOUT THAT