Page Summary
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
dewhitton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
valkyrwench.livejournal.com - (no subject)
makovette.livejournal.com - (no subject)
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
valkyrwench.livejournal.com - (no subject)
makovette.livejournal.com - (no subject)
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
tygermoonfoxx.livejournal.com - (no subject)
makovette.livejournal.com - (no subject)
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
kelloggs2066.livejournal.com - (no subject)
weyrdbird.livejournal.com - (no subject)
makovette.livejournal.com - (no subject)
makovette.livejournal.com - (no subject)
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
klwalton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/ - (no subject)
Active Entries
- 1: around the world in 80 beers episode 212: Summer Pale Ale
- 2: Around The World in 80 Beers Episode 210: 4 Pines Nitro Stout
- 3: Around The World In 80 Beers Episode 208:Nun Launcher Pale Ale
- 4: Hark! A blog post!
- 5: Around The World In 80 Beers Episode 204: Longstocking Autumn Ale
- 6: Around The World In 80 Beers Episode 205: Black Horn Dark Ale
- 7: Around the world in 80 beers episode 204: Longstocking Amber Ale
- 8: Shoulder injection #2
- 9: Around the World in 80 Beers Episode 201: Longstocking Dark Ale
- 10: More banging on about the shoulder
Style Credit
- Base style: Leftovers by
- Theme: Elegant Brown by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:13 (UTC)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%
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:20 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:23 (UTC)I don't know *what* the fuck they think they're thinking! I'm at a total loss.
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:31 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:33 (UTC)Hmmm, maybe they should add a icon of Number of Starving Shia Muslims shot by Saddams goon squads while fleeing Basra for example...
Mako
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:38 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:42 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:48 (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:56 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 19:20 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 19:38 (UTC)Using numbers for inflammatory purposes, such as the web site above, does not further dialog, it just polarizes people into useless shouting camps.
Mako
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 19:42 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 20:00 (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:07 (UTC)I'm watching The Osbournes DVDs and going to bed now:D.
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:37 (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:42 (UTC)CYa!
Mako
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:50 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 28 Mar 2003 22:23 (UTC)no subject
Date: 29 Mar 2003 12:26 (UTC)