One for you damn peace loving hippies.

[den]

Or check out the Iraqometer

Comments

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Brilliant!

This is the saddest part:

Percentage of Americans who currently support this war: 72%

Percentage of Americans who believe Iraq attacked the World Trade Center: 51%

Percentage of Americans who cannot locate Iraq on a world map: 65%

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

That 51% seriously worries me. Has the Average Yank forgotten Osama Bin Laden already? And what was done to Afghanistan? And Why?

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Excuse my French, but...

I don't know *what* the fuck they think they're thinking! I'm at a total loss.

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

They're not thinking. They're taking the propaganda feed intravenously and not questioning any of it.

[tygermoonfoxx.livejournal.com]

I'm one of the exceptions to the rule, I guess. I knew where Iraq was on the map long before any of this started (in part because I spent a semester serving on Model League of Arab States but also because of the extensive archeological finds unique to the Middle East). I'm one of the ones who agrees that something needed done about Saddam Hussein but that this war wasn't the best solution or even the one that would bring closure. As to involvement in the WTC tragedies, I have actually seen evidence to that effect (please don't ask, a friend who shouldn't be talking...does occasionally and it would get him in trouble if I said who he was or where his information came from) and they've made some links to Al Qeda donations and Saddam Hussein's regime. While he might not have been directly responsible, I do think he was a large contributor to the problem. I haven't forgotten Afghanistan; I never understood how invading Iraq was going to provide closure for that mess either.

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

Is there a cite for that 72% support figure? Last support figure I heard was based on a poll of under 800 people.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

http://www.hoosiertimes.com/stories/thisday/nationworld.0328-HT-A4_DMH06242.sto

It seems as if multiple polls point to at least a 2-1 margin of support for the war (whatever that means - polls are relative to the questions asked).

I was really commenting on the other two cites. I don't know about you, but I had to pass geography to graduate from high school.

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

Thanks. And yes, I had to pass geography, too. Of all three point, though, it's your second one that bothers me the most. I seem to keep forgetting the maxim: Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

[makovette.livejournal.com]

% of Iraqi's who couldn't find Mexico on the map: 99.9999%

Who cares? Meaningless polemics do nothing to help anyone anywhere at any time.

Recognise both Left and Right propaganda and reject it all is my advice.

Mako

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Do you have a cite for that figure? Otherwise it's just hot air.

I recognise the propaganda of all sides (there usually are more than two) and use my brain to think it all through critically. Wholesale rejection is lazy.

[makovette.livejournal.com]

Wholesale rejection of propaganda from all sides could scarcely be termed "lazy" I should think...

Using numbers for inflammatory purposes, such as the web site above, does not further dialog, it just polarizes people into useless shouting camps.

Mako

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Wholesale rejection of propaganda from all sides could scarcely be termed "lazy" I should think...

Why? In good propaganda is always a kernel of fact. To reject it wholesale is to deprive your critical thinking processes of data.

Using numbers for inflammatory purposes, such as the web site above, does not further dialog, it just polarizes people into useless shouting camps.

I disagree with your characterization of the numbers as being for inflammatory purposes. I think they're rather telling. Certainly they were used to make a point. And I think they *did* make their point.

[makovette.livejournal.com]

I will assume that your meaning of "good propaganda" really means "effective propaganda", yes?

Propaganda is by it's very nature intended to deceive and influence people into think/behaving in a specific way.

Let me punch a hole into the civilian casualty numbers for example. Let's say 500 civilians are reported dead. Let us wildly assume the number is accurate. How many of those civilians were Shia Muslims murdered by Saddam's goon squads or Kurds slaughtered by the republican guards?

Yes, 500 civilians are dead, but the authors of the propaganda on the web page want to the reader to act on the assumption that the coalition forces killed all 500 of those civilians.

Remember: Saddam's propagandists benefit with ever civilian death regardless of how that person died. In fact Saddam's goons have every incentive to kill as many civilians as possible. And killing Iraqi's is certainly the one thing Saddam and his goons are the most expert at doing.

Under the coalition's current rules of engagement, coalition forces are bent over double to the point they are taking more casualties that necessary to preserve civilian lives. IE: US and British serve men and women are being shot and killed to prevent Iraqi civilians from being wounded or killed.

And THAT is why people swallowing propaganda like that web page frosts my jock strap no end.

Mako

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Propaganda is by it's very nature intended to deceive and influence people into think/behaving in a specific way.

To influence, certainly. But to deceive "by it's very nature"? Not always. One can use facts as very effective propaganda, framed in the right context. One can propagandize without lies.

Under the coalition's current rules of engagement, coalition forces are bent over double to the point they are taking more casualties that necessary to preserve civilian lives. IE: US and British serve men and women are being shot and killed to prevent Iraqi civilians from being wounded or killed.

I dont' disagree with you. That does not take away from the fact that 51% or so of Americans polled believe it was Iraq which attacked the World Trade Center. It does not take away from the fact that the opinions of many Americans are based on false assumptions. And that, specifically, is what I was addressing.

I'm a member of the news media. I have a loved one in Kuwait who is an NBC cameraman, covering that particular venue, who will probably head to Baghdad sooner or later. I know spin, bias and propaganda. I am disturbed by the ignorance of many of the American people. I think it's a problem that needs addressing.

[makovette.livejournal.com]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. I > /dev/nul both the left and right propaganda as applicable.

Hmmm, maybe they should add a icon of Number of Starving Shia Muslims shot by Saddams goon squads while fleeing Basra for example...

Mako

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

I've heard today that there are Al-Quaeda (Okay, I admit, I
can't even spell in English) operatives in Basra.

On Al-Quaeda and Saddam calling each other infidels:
One thing I keep thinking of, that I don't hear anyone mention
is that during the Gulf War in 1991, many or most of Iraq's
fighters fled to Iran. Now, Iraq and Iran are *really* not the
best of friends! Al-Quaeda and Iran don't like the
secularness of the Baath Party. But, as far as I can see, they
close ranks when they're threatened by the West.

If Iran is willing to shelter Iraqi military, I don't think it's a big stretch for Iraq to shelter Al-Quaeda. Both of
them hate the West, and isn't "The Enemy of my Enemy
is My Friend" an old Arabic saying after all?

Okay, all that said, I really intensely wish that this could
have been solved without a war. But, in 1991 we watched for
6-7 months as Saddam steadfastly refused to consider backing
down. For 12 years he's utterly ignored the UN resolutions.
I honestly do not believe that the inspections were working,
or even could be made to work with the UN so divided on the
issue. There was no credible threat to make Saddam back down,
and we've seen him refuse to back down even in the face of
such threats.

Years of history indicates to me that negotiation with Saddam
is a waste of time. This, coming from *me* is a very sad
admission. Personally, I *always* try to negotiate my way
out of trouble, but I do recognize that it doesn't always work.
:(

So, from a security point of view, Saddam must go. It would
only be a matter of time before he either developed an atomic
bomb, or gave nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to
Al-Quaeda.

From a humanitarian point of view... war kills civilians.
Civillians have been getting killed and tortured in
unspeakable ways by Saddam for 20+ years. If this is surgery,
I hope that it removes Saddam the tumor without having to kill
much of the surrounding tissue.

I think a lot of the Iraqis who are currently supporting Saddam
are probably Baath Sunni Moslems (I think) who are afraid of
Kurdish and Shiite uprisings and reprisals (not to mention the
fear of Saddam's reprisals!) The death squads shooting anyone
who dosn't want to fight the Coallition. :(

Propaganda:
UGH. I wish I knew where I could get reliable news from! :(
I used to get my news from BBC WorldNews over dinner.
I always grumbled because I felt that it was biased against
the US. But lately, their own BBC War Correspondants have
charged that the BBC is distorting the news. :(
If I wanted Iraqi propaganda, I'd look up Al-Jazzera (Again,
I can't spell).

FoxNews says they're objective, and I think they're probably
better than the BBC at this point, but I don't know! :(

BBC gets people on in interviews and tries to stir them up
against the Americans. Foxnews gets war protesters on and
tries to get them to say they support the war.

The only thing I can do is to listen to both and try to
piece together the truth. It's a very unsatisfactory
arrangment. :(

In any case, I just hope that it ends soon, Saddam will go,
the civilians will be saved, and that we all can go back to
living our lives peacefully. Three big tall wishes, but
as long as you're wishing, you may as well wish big.

Scott

[weyrdbird.livejournal.com]

As A Yank, all I have to say is bloody fucking US Media. It's all lies and manipulative statistics. At least we're seeing and hearing protest news. They censored it a *lot* the last time we had an "Operation". I've been watching the BBC World News. And avoiding most of the major netowrk telecasts.

I'm watching The Osbournes DVDs and going to bed now:D.

[makovette.livejournal.com]

In Ozzy We Trust :)

CYa!
Mako

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I take issue with your "lies and manipulative statistics". But I'm a member of the "bloody fucking US Media". I guess I'm just a stooge of the right wing. Yesterday I was a stooge of the left wing. *shrug* Whatfuckingever.