Then surely there was a greater need to attack North Korea, which actually did have nuclear weapons in addition to the dictatorial regime of Kim Jong-Il. But no, let's pick on the guy who doesn't have WMDs, 'cause he's the weakest link. Why not attack Castro or Qaddafi, too, as long as we are in the business of removing dictators wherever we want? But for some reason, the U.S. has preferred not to do it for over 40 years. There are plenty of dictators around the world. Why not attack and remove all of them? Let's "spread liberty around the world" like peanut butter, no, not even "spread", let's shove it really deep down other people's throats, maybe they like it even more that way.
Yeah, I know he's everybody's friend now, but why didn't it seem a good idea to remove him then, when he was everybody's enemy? I mean to remove him exactly like Saddam was removed.
Neither is North Korea now. There is a ceasefire agreement which both sides more or less observe.
I am concerned about the Syrian and Iranean involvement in the Iraqi situation. Iran is a special case, but Syria could have been and should have been neutralized without a serious military involvement. Standards may have changed after 9/11, but I wonder how much.
This is strictly IMHO; I am not an expert. I just hate to see diplomats and military people fighting each other instead of fighting a common enemy.
The boundary between propaganda and not propaganda is pretty blurry. Some cases are clear and some are not. The same situation may or may not be classified as propaganda denpending on the context in which it appears.
For example, what I've written is my opinion of the situation in Iraq as a private person. I would like to propagate this view, however, so one can argue that in some sense it may be propaganda. But I lack the sufficient means for doing so, so it's more likely one guy's opinion than propaganda.
The soldier's reply to Rumsfeld may have been honest and heartfelt, as may have been the captain's (?) account of it. However, if this case is picked up, for example, by the army's or government's official PR machine in the way that contradicts the totality of the situation there, it would definitely become propaganda, whether it was true or not.
Yes, I think this is correct. What makes a piece of text propaganda is how it is used, not the contents of the text. (And not whether or not the author wants to "propagate" it. :-))
More precisely, not just the contents: the way a text is written may be part of the presentation, that is, "usage". The same facts and ideas might be put together in a more neutral way.
The main reason I have asked the question in the first place is that I am trying to figure out (1) how much propaganda there is in the regular news we are getting from the regular news sources, including the press and government and various warring factions; (2) what and who makes the news propaganda (versus neutral reporting); and (3) how much propaganda there is in the news and hearsay we are getting from the unofficial and non-journalistic sources such as blogs and private correspondence.
I am considering cases where there is no known distortion of the facts, just a biased presentation. Those who misrepresent the facts are just liars, this is not very interesting.
The main goal is for me to decide how much trust to put into sources that do propaganda without lying. This is related to all sources: the press, government, and prvate ones.
I tend to take such sources with a huge grain of salt, but my experinece in the recent years tells me I am in a danger of losing almost all available sources. This is what happened to me during the Kosovo air campaign. The result is I still cannot form a definite opinion about that war.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Neither is North Korea now. There is a ceasefire agreement which both sides more or less observe.
I am concerned about the Syrian and Iranean involvement in the Iraqi situation. Iran is a special case, but Syria could have been and should have been neutralized without a serious military involvement. Standards may have changed after 9/11, but I wonder how much.
This is strictly IMHO; I am not an expert. I just hate to see diplomats and military people fighting each other instead of fighting a common enemy.
no subject
no subject
For example, what I've written is my opinion of the situation in Iraq as a private person. I would like to propagate this view, however, so one can argue that in some sense it may be propaganda. But I lack the sufficient means for doing so, so it's more likely one guy's opinion than propaganda.
The soldier's reply to Rumsfeld may have been honest and heartfelt, as may have been the captain's (?) account of it. However, if this case is picked up, for example, by the army's or government's official PR machine in the way that contradicts the totality of the situation there, it would definitely become propaganda, whether it was true or not.
no subject
More precisely, not just the contents: the way a text is written may be part of the presentation, that is, "usage". The same facts and ideas might be put together in a more neutral way.
The main reason I have asked the question in the first place is that I am trying to figure out (1) how much propaganda there is in the regular news we are getting from the regular news sources, including the press and government and various warring factions; (2) what and who makes the news propaganda (versus neutral reporting); and (3) how much propaganda there is in the news and hearsay we are getting from the unofficial and non-journalistic sources such as blogs and private correspondence.
I am considering cases where there is no known distortion of the facts, just a biased presentation. Those who misrepresent the facts are just liars, this is not very interesting.
The main goal is for me to decide how much trust to put into sources that do propaganda without lying. This is related to all sources: the press, government, and prvate ones.
I tend to take such sources with a huge grain of salt, but my experinece in the recent years tells me I am in a danger of losing almost all available sources. This is what happened to me during the Kosovo air campaign. The result is I still cannot form a definite opinion about that war.