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.