The Iraq war was started with the popular suport, by people who had been lied up their faces that Iraq poses some kind of threat to them.
Media worked as an excellent relay to spread this bullcrap to the people, since they report everything that Bush says and everything which says there could be a threat to the USA.
The Bush government didn't even need to ask the press to cooperate, they did it for their business. The media knows what people wants to read and the Bush government knew whats a good bait for the media.
So they got people to believe that Saddam was harboring terrorists, having warehouses full of WMD with the target being the US interests / the USA itself and somewhere on the line some people even thinks Saddam had a part with the 911.
Then Bush simply started his "little" war in Iraq, with the popular support.
It's all about how you utilize the media, you don't need to tell them what to write.
No conspiracy there, we all should know by now that the major reasons for the war in Iraq were a lie (well, I guess the american history goes to claim it was just an extremely bad case of misintelligence.. ops).
Is it too simple to realise?
None of that is accurate. its just the ramblings of a left wing Euro-tard.
You kept stating your opinion as fact yet you don't provide evidence. You do realize that there is no 'universal media'. You do realize that the government doesn't control the 'media' and has little power to 'trick' them into printing anything.
You do realize their were a lot of questions in the media about the validity of the Bush decision to invade Iraq.
You do realize that the majority of the worlds intelligence services believed that Iraq had WMD not just Bush.
you do know that Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Is it real that big of a stretch to imagine that Saddam wouldn't finance or aid an attack against America? After all he sponsored an assassination attempt against Bush 1.
He used used WMD against his own people. He had mountains of chemical agents unaccounted for etc...
The fact that no WMDs were doesn't prove you right and does nothing to address the legitimate concerns at were held at the time.
So spare us you 'Bush and his tools in the media' conspiracy nonsense. None of this has anything to do with my freedom or the Second Amendment anyway.
What comes to the stantard of living, I was clearly talking of the living stantards during a civil war.
It would badly affect the economy for a long long time.
People who would be so inclined to revolt would not be overly concerned about the the 'economy'.
'We can't revolt today because our economy will suffer...'
Nowadays it is even more about that who controls the army.
If the army stays loyal to the government, it doesn't matter how much firearms the civilians had prior to the rebellion.
Nonsense there are far more folks with guns then there are military personnel and equipment.
You are just making it up as you go...
Wotan, history is replete with examples of democratic governments going to war on behalf of special interests and using the media to get public opinion on-side, and the US is no exception, in fact it provides some of the textbook examples. No "left-wing nonsense" there, just historical fact. And as Fishu correctly states, the media's relationship with government is generally so incestuous and dependant on political patronage that the main outlets can almost always be relied on to report the governments line.
That's left wing nonsense at it finest. See my reply to Fishu. If can prove me wrong post a source that shows the media being duped or at the very least a tool of GWB.
I didn't vote for Bush either time (or his father). i don't care the guy at all. But that completely different from the paranoid delusions espoused by you and your Finnish Comrade.
