View Full Version : The problem with domestic propaganda
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010438
The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the "butcher of Hiroshima." We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering "shark" run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a "Yankees-Go-Home" petition, at the same time launching the slogan "Europe for the Europeans." During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
Ok read the article, have read similar things before. So...was it really a success? The Soviet bloc collapsed anyway, and am I really to believe the US doesn't try to put out propaganda of it's own now or back then? :hmm:
Why is this seen as sinister or abnormal I don't know every country tries to influence public opnion at home, and overseas if it is a big power.
Ok read the article, have read similar things before. So...was it really a success? The Soviet bloc collapsed anyway, and am I really to believe the US doesn't try to put out propaganda of it's own now or back then? :hmm:
Why is this seen as sinister or abnormal I don't know every country tries to influence public opnion at home, and overseas if it is a big power.
I guess it depends on how you define success. It's not uncommon for wartime things outlive their creators, like a long forgotten bomb that kills a bunch of construction workers decades after the war, a propaganda strategy can take on a life of it's own.
SUBMAN1
08-07-07, 02:50 PM
Always interesting to see things through the eyes of others. That whole article should be posted and formatted. It is worth the read.
-S
Tchocky
08-09-07, 09:35 AM
Funny, it reads like propaganda :)
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. Its almost as if he's trying to say that that stuff didn't really happen at all.:hmm: I'm pretty sure every one of those things happened at least once... or twice.
This guy sounds like another right wing polemic warning us against the dangers of being young, having an open mind, and daring to question the King. If he wasn't so dramatic he might be able to make a point without making us totalitarian leftists shake our heads.
SUBMAN1
08-09-07, 01:27 PM
Funny, it reads like propaganda :)
What makes it worse - it is not! :-?
-S
Tchocky
08-09-07, 04:59 PM
It certainly adopts the pose and language of propagandists, such as
- If we don't stop questioning, the Evil-Doers win
- Those who question are communists
- I escaped from a repressive regime, so I say NO DISSENT!
etc
It certainly adopts the pose and language of propagandists, such as
- If we don't stop questioning, the Evil-Doers win
- Those who question are communists
- I escaped from a repressive regime, so I say NO DISSENT!
etc
I don't see how you could get any of that from the article. Is the concept that such hateful rhetoric could be deliberately inspired and promoted by a hostile foreign government that hard to believe?
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. Its almost as if he's trying to say that that stuff didn't really happen at all.:hmm: I'm pretty sure every one of those things happened at least once... or twice.
This guy sounds like another right wing polemic warning us against the dangers of being young, having an open mind, and daring to question the King. If he wasn't so dramatic he might be able to make a point without making us totalitarian leftists shake our heads.
No he's a former KGB General describing not opinion, not hearsay but his first hand knowledge. So how's it feel to find out you've been manipulated like that?
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
08-10-07, 12:14 AM
No he's a former KGB General describing not opinion, not hearsay but his first hand knowledge. So how's it feel to find out you've been manipulated like that?
He is also a traitor to his own people, and probably living very well through being ingratiating to his new keepers. If it was an American traitor now living in Russia / Iran / whatever making the same claims about America, will you be as sympathetic?
I have no doubt that the Soviet Union played up any American atrocities or mistakes for all they are worth. The United States does the same. It might even be that at least some of the atrocities did not occur. But to imply the Americans were really goody-goodies in Vietnam makes him sound just like a paid rat. To try and imply that any negative commentary is damaging to the nation makes me feel he never really gotten out of the old Soviet stereotypical mold.
I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America's own respect for its president.
The guy doesn't even separate correlation and cause. Could it be, uh, that Presidents respected by Americans were really better Presidents enforcing better policies, thus winning respect domestically and globally? How did he become a General of anything with this level of intellect?
He is also a traitor to his own people, and probably living very well through being ingratiating to his new keepers. If it was an American traitor now living in Russia / Iran / whatever making the same claims about America, will you be as sympathetic?
A disinformation campaign directed against the subjects of a tolitarian government like the Soviet Union? The restricted access to news and information alone makes such a comparison flawed.
To try and imply that any negative commentary is damaging to the nation makes me feel he never really gotten out of the old Soviet stereotypical mold.
But he doesn't imply that, at least not in that article. There's a vast difference between "any" negative commentary and lies, exaggerations and outright character assassination don't ya think?
It might even be that at least some of the atrocities did not occur. But to imply the Americans were really goody-goodies in Vietnam makes him sound just like a paid rat.
That's mighty nice of you to contemplate that "at least some" of the millions of Americans who served in that war weren't the baby raping psycho killers the left made them out to be. :roll:
The guy doesn't even separate correlation and cause. Could it be, uh, that Presidents respected by Americans were really better Presidents enforcing better policies, thus winning respect domestically and globally?
I can think of at least two contrary examples of this off the top of my head. Nixon and Carter. Both were quite popular globally but not domestically in their day.
Now you seem to be doing a lot of reading between the lines with your continued references to what the author "implies". Why not stick to what he says instead of trying to find a hidden meaning? Is it that hard to believe that there could be a residiual effect to the decades of propaganda disseminated by the Soviets?
Heibges
08-10-07, 02:43 AM
Is Oliver Stone a KGB agent?
Is Oliver Stone a KGB agent?
You have a point?
That's mighty nice of you to contemplate that "at least some" of the millions of Americans who served in that war weren't the baby raping psycho killers the left made them out to be. :roll:
The left the left. Oh my you are just as bad as the lefties thatyou have such disdain for. You use such panned words to generalize and sum your arguments up into something that sounds very good and very adversarial. Just accept it that American kids in Vietnam were forced to fight a disgusting war and in the process some of them were turned into brutal murderers. That happens in every war but Vietnam was particularly bad for some reason. Maybe its the sudden sense of moral conscience or maybe its because there was no righteous justification for the fight itself to offset the evils that war inevitably breeds amongst honest men. However it may be don't go defending the atrocities with accusation against the phantom "left". I say something academic about the neo-cons and I'm laughed at but oh my, the "left". Generalizations are the habit of laziness and hate.
When you talk about the left and say nothing more you just sound like the porpoganda that we're suposed to be deriding anyway.
Generalizations are the habit of laziness and hate.
Then why do you engage in them so often?
Skybird
08-10-07, 04:59 AM
Nills and Ones, all or nothing at all, totally holy or totally evil...
The article is too much black-white painting. And that is already an intention in itself. By that it turns into a piece of propaganda not different to that it claims to critizise in others (lefties). that it also is of narrow perspepective and written with a certain agenda on the author's mind, described in the last two sentences, does not make it any better. In other words: elections are coming, and candidates and parties send their pawns forward.
Concerning Bush, that man is a story for itself. I would not even try to compare him to any other american president of the modern time. He does not compare to any precedent, I think, at least in the last 100 years (I will not claim that I know the others before that so well). and it was not the KGB or the lefties who crushed his credibility, but the unscrupelousness and silliness of his own policies and deformations of some key elements of the american treasure of political ideals and principles. He is no victim of propaganda, but an offender who became guilty by his own deeds.
AntEater
08-10-07, 06:03 AM
No precedent for the president??
:D
Seriously, why does the american right have to associate themselves with lowlifes such as defectors?
Defectors are usually milked for information, then shooed off to some quiet country home and kept under the rug.
Sorry, but I wouldnt let somebody who allready betrayed his country for money write articles. I mean this guy was with Securitate, so he was a total anticommunist, right?
And if he's that anticommunist patriotic, why doesn't he go back to rumania, which today certainly is one of the most capitalist countries in the world?
Ok, maybe he would get spit at by his countrymen for taking the short route to the dollar and making speeches instead of rising up and putting their dictator up against a wall as the rest of the country did....
Tchocky
08-10-07, 06:04 AM
I don't see how you could get any of that from the article. Is the concept that such hateful rhetoric could be deliberately inspired and promoted by a hostile foreign government that hard to believe? It's really easy to spot this.
Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania--with two death sentences on his head--in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."
OK, so it's not that the Prez isn't a liar or a fraud, its the "time of war". Suggesting that criticising the President is treasonous, you know, because it's "a time of war". Very scary. War. Boo!
He's also taking the most extreme critical analysis of motives - that of personal gain. You know, like when Hillary is called a communist, and every Republican is labelled "neo-con". More heat than light.
And we're supposed to take this seriously because he's had A Hard Time. Aw. Two death sentences? He must be right then.
Then we get this nice amber-waves-of-Romania story about his father. Aw.
For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war--if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that. At best. that's a highly simplistic, subjective, and emotion-ridden statement. It's not an argument, it's a Big Hug. Aw.
Then we have a nice list and description of Soviet intelligence and their work against the United States. This is bookended with current events and statements from American Democrats and European leaders. Gee, I wonder what the intention is here.
And after the list of Cold War lies and disinformation, he gives it the old heave-ho. Let's accuse the Dems of doing the same thing! Let's call them all communists!
Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O'Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a "deserter." And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, "Give Bush the Boot."Wow! A doormat! That's so KGB!
A governor and a retired general, I can see how that matches up with baby-burning and Genghis Khan. (Yes, that Genghis Khan).
More worried about the Bush administration? I certainly am. Al-Qaeda don't give me the third degree everytime I enter the US.
Bush a deserter? Isn't that common knowledge?
These comparisions are specious at best. At best.
And then we get The Fear. If both parties work together (ie, if the critics shut up), we will defeat The Evil Doers. How do we know this? Zarqawi said so! An extremist murderer said so, it's a reliable source! The Free World (not my capitals - this guy really goes nuts here) will triumph! If parties "work together"! And with a GOP administration, that means "You are Free to do as we tell you!"
But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."
Oh yes, and this of course is prefaced by a paragraph on the Second World War. Because you know, these two situations are totally analogous. I expected the Iraq War to be fought in black-and-white, with Errol Flynn manning the turrets.
And you say this doesn't read as propaganda?
On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents--some better than others--but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable.
O beautiful, for spacious skies.....
File Under Bullsh*t
Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania--with two death sentences on his head--in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."
OK, so it's not that the Prez isn't a liar or a fraud, its the "time of war". Suggesting that criticising the President is treasonous, you know, because it's "a time of war". Very scary. War. Boo!
Using "suggesting" instead of "implying" doesn't hide the fact it's your own biased opinion. Like i said stick to what he said not what you feel he meant to say.
[quote]He's also taking the most extreme critical analysis of motives - that of personal gain. You know, like when Hillary is called a communist, and every Republican is labelled "neo-con". More heat than light.
"More heat than light" is pretty much what the whole article is about I think.
And we're supposed to take this seriously because he's had A Hard Time. Aw. Two death sentences? He must be right then.
Death sentances doesn't make it wrong...
Then we get this nice amber-waves-of-Romania story about his father. Aw.
For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war--if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that. At best. that's a highly simplistic, subjective, and emotion-ridden statement. It's not an argument, it's a Big Hug. Aw.
Aw. that's just irrelevant.
Then we have a nice list and description of Soviet intelligence and their work against the United States. This is bookended with current events and statements from American Democrats and European leaders. Gee, I wonder what the intention is here.
That he feels these statements are inspired at least in part by Soviet disinformation campaigns?
And after the list of Cold War lies and disinformation, he gives it the old heave-ho. Let's accuse the Dems of doing the same thing! Let's call them all communists!
Show me where he calls all Democrats "communists".
More worried about the Bush administration? I certainly am. Al-Qaeda don't give me the third degree everytime I enter the US.
No Al Quaeda would just hijack the plane you were on and run it into a tall building or saw your head off while they videotaped it. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Bush a deserter? Isn't that common knowledge?
Only if you believe the deliberately falsified Dan Rather report. Which, now that i think about it, kind of sums up the articles whole message. People like you are all too willing to believe anything negative because it fits your pre existing biases.
And then we get The Fear. If both parties work together (ie, if the critics shut up), we will defeat The Evil Doers. How do we know this? Zarqawi said so! An extremist murderer said so, it's a reliable source! The Free World (not my capitals - this guy really goes nuts here) will triumph! If parties "work together"! And with a GOP administration, that means "You are Free to do as we tell you!"
"IE" nothing my friend. "A house divided will not stand" and "We best hang together or we'll surely hang seperately" are not quotes from a KGB general.
But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."
Oh yes, and this of course is prefaced by a paragraph on the Second World War. Because you know, these two situations are totally analogous. I expected the Iraq War to be fought in black-and-white, with Errol Flynn manning the turrets.
Maybe not but they are not mutually exclusive as you are claiming. Talk about black and white comparisons...
And you say this doesn't read as propaganda?
On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents--some better than others--but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable.
O beautiful, for spacious skies.....
File Under Bullsh*t
Only because that is what you choose to believe. See my signature quote.
SUBMAN1
08-10-07, 11:28 AM
Why is everyone against this guy is basing their opinions on the fact that he is a defector and saying the since he is, that his statements are false?
I find it amazing that here you have a guy looking out from the Iron curtain, studying the US of A in every shape and form, understands Russia inside and out from an intelligence position, realizing that US of A is the best place to be in the world, and leaves the very country that he thought he loved for something he can truly love!
To anyone with half a brain, this guy is probably the best guy in the entire world to listen to on matters that he writes about in this article. Here is a man that has seen both sides of the fence, and he knows how both sides operate, so anyone who has not seen what this man has seen has no basis to dispute the facts that he portrays. His are not opinions like ours are - but fact.
I guess we like to make arguments where there are no arguments on this forum.
-S
Why is everyone against this guy is basing their opinions on the fact that he is a defector and saying the since he is, that his statements are false?
I find it amazing that here you have a guy looking out from the Iron curtain, studying the US of A in every shape and form, understands Russia inside and out from an intelligence position, realizing that US of A is the best place to be in the world, and leaves the very country that he thought he loved for something he can truly love!
To anyone with half a brain, this guy is probably the best guy in the entire world to listen to on matters that he writes about in this article. Here is a man that has seen both sides of the fence, and he knows how both sides operate, so anyone who has not seen what this man has seen has no basis to dispute the facts that he portrays. His are not opinions like ours are - but fact.
I guess we like to make arguments where there are no arguments on this forum.
-S
No Subman, it's because people don't want to hear they've been played like violins. "Bush is teh Hitler" and anyone who says otherwise is a neo-con nazi. Didn't you get the memo?
Tchocky
08-10-07, 01:58 PM
Using "suggesting" instead of "implying" doesn't hide the fact it's your own biased opinion. Like i said stick to what he said not what you feel he meant to say. I'd rather see the forest, thanks. And I used the word "suggesting" because that is what I meant.
And we're supposed to take this seriously because he's had A Hard Time. Aw. Two death sentences? He must be right then.
Death sentances doesn't make it wrong...Of course not. But it's a definite appeal to sympathy, not a hallmark of a great argument.
Aw. that's just irrelevant. Exactly. What his father thought about America is not relevant to whether or not the Dems/Europeans are using Soviet-era tricks. It's irrelevant and designed to arouse sympathy in the reader.
Then we have a nice list and description of Soviet intelligence and their work against the United States. This is bookended with current events and statements from American Democrats and European leaders. Gee, I wonder what the intention is here. That he feels these statements are inspired at least in part by Soviet disinformation campaigns? Yeah, that must be it. He's not convinced me, if he had a decent case to make, then he wouldn't be giving out about a doormat.
Show me where he calls all Democrats "communists".
There you go. Unfortunately, this falls victim to the forest-trees problem.
Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief.
Again, this is hardly "mudslinging". A top Democrat has merchandise in his office that expresses the views of his party. How is this man not in Gitmo already?
More worried about the Bush administration? I certainly am. Al-Qaeda don't give me the third degree everytime I enter the US.
No Al Quaeda would just hijack the plane you were on and run it into a tall building or saw your head off while they videotaped it. You're comparing apples to oranges. True, they have been known to do that. But that isn't the point. I'm more worried about the hassle and downright abuse than I am about Al-Qaeda. I'm more worried about the excessive datamining and visa restrictions than i am about Al-Qaeda. The probability of a hijacking is miniscule, and always has been, whereas the other is close to 1. Guess which one is guaranteed to happen. I know this is a specious example, but i'm trying to highlight how ridiculous his premise is. If criticism of GWB is a thinly-veiled propaganda trick by the Democrats, then a hell of a lot of the coutry have gone with them. Maybe, just maybe, it could be because of his presidency. Maybe.
Bush a deserter? Isn't that common knowledge?
Only if you believe the deliberately falsified Dan Rather report. Which, now that i think about it, kind of sums up the articles whole message. People like you are all too willing to believe anything negative because it fits your pre existing biases. yeah, he accidentally ended up in a champagne unit with Conally's son, Bentsen's son, Tower's son and James Bath. Totally random, like. Oh, and he did show up for all of it. Sure.
And then we get The Fear. If both parties work together (ie, if the critics shut up), we will defeat The Evil Doers. How do we know this? Zarqawi said so! An extremist murderer said so, it's a reliable source! The Free World (not my capitals - this guy really goes nuts here) will triumph! If parties "work together"! And with a GOP administration, that means "You are Free to do as we tell you!"
"IE" nothing my friend. "A house divided will not stand" and "We best hang together or we'll surely hang seperately" are not quotes from a KGB general. You're right. They're from someone else.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, August. America should hang together? A house divided might think about sitting down for a change. i could go on all day :)
Maybe not but they are not mutually exclusive as you are claiming. (oh cool, i love this game!)
You're inferring that to fit your own prejudiced biases! Show me where I said they were mutually exclusive!
(see?)
The author is trying to stir up emotions in the reader that have little or nothing to do with the current situation. The idea that if America "unites" then it will win whatever war it's supposed to be fighting is absurd. The subheading claims that criticism "emboldens our enemies". Who cares what your enemies think? (addressing the author here) It's not like they are sane, rational minded people! These are the types of guys who'll blow up a bus full of civilians, and you're scared of what they think of you? Please, that sounds like..um, cowardice? oh no, we can't embolden them. That would be a Bad Thing. Bring out the Thought police.
Only because that is what you choose to believe. See my signature quote. No, I say it reads as propaganda because he claims to love the country only second to life itself. Come on.
Sig quote? I have sigs turned off but I remember Teddy Roosevelt not understanding that you choose a wife, your parents have sex in an country. There's a bit of a difference.
Ah, I see now.
As in, I see the sig, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm spitting on freedom because I disagree with someone who tells me to be quiet? I don't get it.
Maybe it's you who is spitting on freedom?
Unless you mean I'm spoiled with freedom, or something. Roadblocks and army searches beat that out of me at an early age. Thanks though.
Then why do you engage in them so often?
zing
Generalizations are the habit of laziness and hate. Then why do you engage in them so often? zing
[Yeah, that must be it. He's not convinced me
Nor could he apparently, regardless of anything he might say. Your mind was made up long before you even read the article.
There you go. Unfortunately, this falls victim to the forest-trees problem.
That is a rather weak attempt to sidestep the issue. You claimed he called all Democrats "communists". Now either show where he does say that or admit you just made it up.
Again, this is hardly "mudslinging". A top Democrat has merchandise in his office that expresses the views of his party. How is this man not in Gitmo already?
Indeed, if the Republicans were nearly as bad as you make them out to be why isn't he?
True, they have been known to do that. But that isn't the point. I'm more worried about the hassle and downright abuse than I am about Al-Qaeda. I'm more worried about the excessive datamining and visa restrictions than i am about Al-Qaeda. The probability of a hijacking is miniscule, and always has been, whereas the other is close to 1. Guess which one is guaranteed to happen. I know this is a specious example, but i'm trying to highlight how ridiculous his premise is. If criticism of GWB is a thinly-veiled propaganda trick by the Democrats, then a hell of a lot of the coutry have gone with them. Maybe, just maybe, it could be because of his presidency. Maybe.
Maybe, but the Democrats go over the top with the "bush=hitlerz" mantra so often it's obvious they'll say anything and do anything to hamstring him regardless of accuracy or long term consequences.
yeah, he accidentally ended up in a champagne unit with Conally's son, Bentsen's son, Tower's son and James Bath. Totally random, like. Oh, and he did show up for all of it. Sure.
Don't backpedal, just admit your "deserter" claim was a bald faced lie. As for the "champagne unit" crack, i find that offensive and insulting to the millions of American men and women who have served in our countries national guard over the years. Besides if you think that a fighter pilots job, regardless of location, is some totally safe billet then you obviously know nothing about it.
You're right. They're from someone else.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, August. America should hang together? A house divided might think about sitting down for a change. i could go on all day :)
We sure can as long as you continue to obfusicate the issue. But that's ok. The Democrats will some day get into power and when they need the support of the other half of the political spectrum we'll see how quickly you dismiss the unity concept then. That is what demonizing political opponents leads to
You're inferring that to fit your own prejudiced biases! Show me where I said they were mutually exclusive!
Easy, Axis troops wore uniforms.
The idea that if America "unites" then it will win whatever war it's supposed to be fighting is absurd.
As opposed to the chances of winning in spite of a lack of unity? Where in history has a divided nation ever won a war?
The subheading claims that criticism "emboldens our enemies". Who cares what your enemies think? (addressing the author here) It's not like they are sane, rational minded people! These are the types of guys who'll blow up a bus full of civilians, and you're scared of what they think of you? Please, that sounds like..um, cowardice? oh no, we can't embolden them. That would be a Bad Thing. Bring out the Thought police.
Your sarcasm aside, if i were you i'd do some research on the effect of morale on a war effort. Apparently you don't really understand the concept.
No, I say it reads as propaganda because he claims to love the country only second to life itself. Come on.
Yeah I could see where you would have a hard time understanding such a concept.
Unless you mean I'm spoiled with freedom, or something. Roadblocks and army searches beat that out of me at an early age. Thanks though.
Well it could have been worse. You or those you care about (if any) might have been killed by the bombs and guns those roadblocks and searches were trying to interdict. What was that again about forests and trees?
Tchocky
08-11-07, 07:24 PM
Nor could he apparently, regardless of anything he might say. Your mind was made up long before you even read the article. No, August, that's not true. A single article failing to convince me of the validity of its conclusions does not equate to my being prejudiced.
Honestly, if what you say about me was true, at some stage I would have had a long think about how closely related current criticism of the president is to activities of the KGB. I have not considered this premise before, much less closed my mind about it.
This article did not convince me. Why don't you believe that?
I don't know how you can make that claim.
That is a rather weak attempt to sidestep the issue. You claimed he called all Democrats "communists". Now either show where he does say that or admit you just made it up. No, I didn't make it up, but I did make a mistake in the use of the word "all". I had to go back and check, to be sure I had used it.
Given the position of communism as the Great Enemy, the Evil Empire, ascribing tactics of communist states to the most left-leaning major party in America has unwritten consequences. The intent here is to conflate the Democratic Party and the KGB. of course, this isn't stated explicitly, and is merely what I infer from the article. That is not the same as "making it up".
One cannot pretend that a text exists solely, alone. The act of digestion, of reading, brings up a different reaction in different people. It's impossible to focus on just "what he wrote", but I can focus solely on what I read, if you follow me.
Again, this is hardly "mudslinging". A top Democrat has merchandise in his office that expresses the views of his party. How is this man not in Gitmo already?Indeed, if the Republicans were nearly as bad as you make them out to be why isn't he? Ok, I can do this too. That is a rather weak attempt to sidestep the issue.
That is the second time on these boards that I have ever mentioned Guantanamo Bay, much less the actions of the GOP. Anyway, Gitmo is hardly a GOP issue, it's a presidential/judicial one.
OK, my intent here was to illustrate how weak the examples that the author provides really are.
Maybe, but the Democrats go over the top with the "bush=hitlerz" mantra so often it's obvious they'll say anything and do anything to hamstring him regardless of accuracy or long term consequences. That doesn't make the author's premise any less shaky. In fact, I think it's curious that you agree with me that one of his examples does not stand up, then go on to say that my disagreement is down to a pre-conceived bias.
Don't backpedal, just admit your "deserter" claim was a bald faced lie. As for the "champagne unit" crack, I find that offensive and insulting to the millions of American men and women who have served in our countries national guard over the years. No backpedaling here, and I think that someone who does not fulfil their military service obligations counts as a deserter. It's rather unusual to find the sons of the Texas elite all serving in the same unit, hence the champagne unit. It's not a criticism of the job that the National Guard was doing, it's the avoidance of other duties. Besides if you think that a fighter pilots job, regardless of location, is some totally safe billet then you obviously know nothing about it. OK, this really annoys me. I never said anything like that, and you know it. The criticism in serving the ANG is that you are sending another person into harms way instead of yourself. Especially when it looks like privileged people kept themselves out of fighting and allowed others without their string-pulling capabilities to go. That doesn't make flying a fighter any safer.
And I'm sure that flying in peace and flying in war.....one has to be more dangerous.
We sure can as long as you continue to obfusicate the issue. But that's ok. The Democrats will some day get into power and when they need the support of the other half of the political spectrum we'll see how quickly you dismiss the unity concept then. That is what demonizing political opponents leads toWhat? You start the quote-government guessing-game and I'm obfuscating? I ask you to clarify what you mean and suddenly I'm muddying the waters. I honestly didn't understand what you were trying to say.
The idea that if America "unites" then it will win whatever war it's supposed to be fighting is absurd. As opposed to the chances of winning in spite of a lack of unity? Where in history has a divided nation ever won a war?It's a dangerous over-simplification. The nation that is totally united will win every war it fights, and there'll be a lot of them if there is no dissent. Should a nation still be united if winning the war is a bad idea? If winning was wrong? These may or may not apply, but you see how simple and useless the idea is?
Your sarcasm aside, if i were you i'd do some research on the effect of morale on a war effort. Apparently you don't really understand the concept.
Yeah, I didn’t say either "morale" of "war effort", but I don't understand it. I wasn't being sarcastic at all.
So it's a domestic thing then, for domestic consumption and not the "enemy"? OK, now I get it. Silencing talk that might "embolden" doesn't actually mean that, it's a way to get your own citizens to do what you want! I think I understand now.
What is going on in America today is hardly a "war effort". Where's the war tax, the draft to support a creaking military?
Well it could have been worse. You or those you care about (if any) might have been killed by the bombs and guns those roadblocks and searches were trying to interdict. What was that again about forests and trees?Thanks for that, August.
I see what you were trying to do, cast me as someone spoiled with freedom etc etc. A nice little spot of character assassination that you were spared having to say directly. And when I responded, you bring up the spectre of people I care apart being blown to bits. Thank you very much. Why go down this road, August? Looking back over the thread, I see a lot of assumptive and dismissive behaviour. I've been sarcastic and snide, but not towards you*, towards the author of this piece. You instead use phrases like "people like you", and talk about my "pre-existing biases".
People like you are all too willing to believe anything negative because it fits your pre existing biases.
* = (Mostly not towards you, I've gotten exasperated a couple of times. Sorry)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.