Author Topic: [zepps_essays] Propaganda (Read 1160 times)

Cobra · « **Reply #30 on:** August 30, 2002, 07:47:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
to many lies and half truths and screwing people for fun .

LOL, you just described the 1993 to 2001 Presidency!

BTW, I'm registered as an Independent.

Cobra

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #31 on:** September 01, 2002, 04:16:14 AM »

yea talk about propaganda, what was the final figure for cash spent on the "investigation" about white water that garnered one blow job? hint its in the 10s of millions.
the republicans spent our tax dollars by the millions for 8 years trying to unseat a president that actualy won the position.

you support um if you want.

sling322 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 01, 2002, 11:41:20 AM »

So, TOWD.....if the shoe was on the other foot, you saying the same thing wouldnt have been done?

If thats what you think, you are a fool. Politicians been doing the same thing for years no matter which party they are with. Nobody ever takes the blame for the bad stuff and they always take the credit for the good.

Amazing to see so many sheep in this nation blindly following one party or the other. You have a mind, use it. Dont just vote the party line. As long as folks keep doing that, politics in this country will never change.

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** September 01, 2002, 10:59:05 PM »

Man, think how much $$$ could have been saved if he just told the truth the first time!

10Bears · « **Reply #34 on:** September 02, 2002, 01:29:59 PM »

Hiya Wulfie.. this is really not an Iraq thread but I’ll try to answer.

1. (YES or NO) Is Iraq in direct violation of the cease fire that they signed before the U.N. that was the cause for cessation of hostilities vs. Iraq?

The short answer is yes however since the U.S. often ignores the mandates of the U.N., why should any other country? Saddam has already said he would allow inspectors back in the country, but the current U.S. administration has already said it didn’t matter that Saddam had to go anyway.

2. In your opinion, why does Iraq refuse to allow U.N. (NOTE: U.N., as opposed to U.S.) WMD inspection teams into Iraq? Keep in mind that Iraq's failure to allow such inspection teams into Iraq is a major cause for the continuing import/export/trade restrictions levied against Iraq by the U.N.
After weapons inspector Scott Ritter declared most if not all WMD had been destroyed the sanctions were no where near being lifted. That was a double cross. They never had any intention of lifting sanctions as long as Saddam or any of his sons were in power. Right now to avert war, Saddam is asking the U.N. the E.U. anyone who’ll listen, to bring over weapons inspectors. The E.U. is seriously considering it which could complicate our attack plans.
But.. like I’ve said on another thread Wulfie, I’m on the bus now with regard to invading Iraq. Once we Americans have control of Iraq, and Saudi oil.. We rule the world. Not me the Bushes do.. The Euros can pay double for petrol for not supporting us. If it turns into a toejamstorm.. that’s grounds for impeachment. If you notice, combat veterans are a bit luke warm on this attack. They want to support President Bush... they just think junior been watching too many Hollywood movies.
The real reason for the attack as you must know is about oil.. the propaganda they are using to justify this war is the same the Germans used in 1938.. hence, the article I posted above.

Man, think how much $$$ could have been saved if he just told the truth the first time!

Gosh Toad! why didn’t President Clinton think about that! You mean to say the corporate right-wing slime machine would’ve turned off it’s spew hose had Clinton simply told the truth about his girlfriend? Golly!

Thrawn · « **Reply #35 on:** September 02, 2002, 01:54:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

Seems like a good match for Anne Coulter.....Anti Anne. Both use the same type of propagandish style and inviction.

I wonder how much energy would be released in the Anne/Anti-Anne explosion that would surely result if they ever met?

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** September 02, 2002, 04:18:34 PM »

Probably would have made a big difference if he had and he had done it right from the start.

wulfie · « **Reply #37 on:** September 02, 2002, 05:50:49 PM »

The U.S. ignores the U.N.?

Give me an example of the U.S. 'ignoring' a U.N. *resolution* (note that this is very different than disagreeing with a proposed resolution before it is passed).

Ritter claimed that "most if not all WMD had been destroyed"? That's funny - it's almost exactly the opposite of what he did claim. He resigned his position because he felt the weapons inspectors were being given the 'run-around' by Iraq and that the U.N. and certain Nations were not 'backing up' the weapons inspectors at all despite these problems.

As for 'it's about oil' - maybe, but not from the U.S. or the U.K.'s point of view. The main 'oil' issue is that certain Nations stand to make big $$$ working in Iraq in 'the oil business', and the U.S. and the U.K. are not on this list. Not surprisingly, these same Nations have done their best for over 10 years to get the sanctions lifted when they shouldn't, and have done their best to 'look like friends of Mr. Hussein'.

Mike/wulfie

wsnpr · « **Reply #38 on:** September 03, 2002, 04:44:42 AM »

Good article 10Bears if the author were to include 'extreme' in his descriptions of the 'Republican and Christian Right'. The points are well made if I interpret it that way. If he meant most Republicans and Chritians that are right of center, then he paints with too broad a brush. Good article otherwise, thanks.

I've been wondering if our saber rattling against Sadaam Hussein isn't a way to take the heat off the Bush administration's (alleged, possible) ties to the Enron, WorldCom issues. Nothing like going to war to get the support of one's own nation.

Some points to ponder for those that believe Sadaam is evil:

Is Sadaam only going 'crazy' now or has he always been 'crazy'?
He had plenty of chemical weapons before his war with Kuwait. Why would he attack us? He knows full well that we would retaliate with our own WMD to any country that attacks us with such. He's too busy trying to save and preserve his own life that I seriously doubt he'd try anything so stupid. He may be 'crazy', but he isn't stupid.

We've had worse REAL threats (using the 'Sadaam will attack the US as soon as he gets the chance.' school of thought.)
Both the USSR and China has WMD. Why haven't they attacked us yet?

Don't believe everything you read. Believe it or not, a lot of the articles one reads is fabricated (propaganda). It's what nations do to each other to gain popular support.

Regards,
wSNPR

wulfie · « **Reply #39 on:** September 03, 2002, 05:14:36 AM »

'Evil' and 'Crazy' are not the same things.

Yes, both Russia and China have nuclear weapons. They also aren't ruled by dictators - i.e. no one person in either of those Nations can use said weapons 'on a whim'.

The major concern here is that nuclear weapons allow an aggressive brutal dictator to 'get away' with a great deal more.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was significant opposition worldwide to forming a Coalition which had the sole intent of liberating Kuwait.

Could you imagine the worldwide opposition to countering a similar invasion if it was known that Iraq had deployable nuclear weapons?

Comparing the arguments for replacing the leadership of Iraq to 1930's and later Nazi propoganda is pure idiocy. The 2 situations differ in so many ways it makes me wonder if either of you have any knolwedge of history whatsoever.

Mike/wulfie

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #40 on:** September 03, 2002, 05:29:48 AM »

toad are you suggesting that they ( the conservative elements of the republican party) would have given up the witch hunt without finnaly finding somthing to try to get him to resign? if you are your wrong and you know it.

My suggestion is that if a party is corrupt enough to try to over throw the government aginst the will of the people by any means short of military arms it is a bad organization dominated by evil self serving men. just that and its plenty if you want to allie yourself with such men on the grounds that they dont lie on the stand or play around on their wives you are a fool and have fallen for the most base sort of deception.

wsnpr · « **Reply #41 on:** September 03, 2002, 05:30:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wulfie
'Evil' and 'Crazy' are not the same things.

Yes, both Russia and China have nuclear weapons. They also aren't ruled by dictators - i.e. no one person in either of those Nations can use said weapons 'on a whim'.

The major concern here is that nuclear weapons allow an aggressive brutal dictator to 'get away' with a great deal more.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was significant opposition worldwide to forming a Coalition which had the sole intent of liberating Kuwait.

Could you imagine the worldwide opposition to countering a similar invasion if it was known that Iraq had deployable nuclear weapons?

Comparing the arguments for replacing the leadership of Iraq to 1930's and later Nazi propoganda is pure idiocy. The 2 situations differ in so many ways it makes me wonder if either of you have any knolwedge of history whatsoever.

Mike/wulfie

It seems that we were always told to fear the 'Commies' because they wouldn't hesitate to use their WMD on us because they were the 'crazy' ones.
The United States has always relied on having an 'enemy'.
The 'savages' that were the native American Indian tribes to which we broke every (it seems) treaty we every signed with them. ( I wonder why we have a saying of 'Indian giver' and not 'White man giver.' )
The 'evil' Spaniards.
The 'evil' Mexicans.
The 'evil' communists.
The 'evil' drug cartels.
The 'evil' Iranians.
The 'Axis of Evil.'
The 'evil' Sadaam Hussein.
We have always used propaganda to suit our needs, and we will continue to do so. Don't buy into everything you read hook, line, and sinker. I do know more about history than you suppose I do. Don't be so pompous.
Regards,
wSNPR

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #42 on:** September 03, 2002, 06:03:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears

Gosh Toad! why didn’t President Clinton think about that! You mean to say the corporate right-wing slime machine would’ve turned off it’s spew hose had Clinton simply told the truth about his girlfriend? Golly!

Clinton 1996 Contributors: Global Petroleum Inc. Paine Webber Group Inc. Chrysler Smith Barney Inc. Entergy Corporation Blue Cross/Blue Shield Walt Disney Productions Sprint At&T/McCaw Raytheon Company Goldman Sachs

Demo 1996 Soft Money Contributors: Phillip Morris! RJ Reynolds!

Gore 2000 Contributors: Ernst & Young, Citigroup Inc, Viacom Inc, Time Warner, BellSouth Corp, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co,

Demo 2000 Soft Money Contributors: Enron and WorldCom! Just to name 2…

Although many of these listed gave to the Republicans as well and some of them more to Reps, it is time to stop thinking of corporations as evil right wing fat cats. The views of corporations are made up of the full political spectrum of the people that populate them.

Corporate right-wing slime machine? please

Toad · « **Reply #43 on:** September 03, 2002, 07:31:19 AM »

Think what you like. I'll do the same, OK?

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #44 on:** September 03, 2002, 07:39:27 AM »

by all means never wanted to change your mind. just sick of hearing a (popularly elected as opposed to what we have now)president insulted over and over ad nausium as the rusult of a attempted goverment overthrow foiled. you approve of it its your decision.