Iraq, think about it.

Akrasia

fly_agaric wrote:

No, language reflects how people understand a situation. It reflects their thoughts. Or it may mask the truth of what people actually think if used in a distorted lying way. Propagandists can phrase things in the way they think suits their point of view (insurgents, terrorists, the resistance; martyrs, suicide bombers, homicide bombers) but shouting that down is actually up can't actually make people think that down is up.

Yes you can. It's called doublethink.

A significant proportion of the U.S. population believe that 'America is under attack' and they are only 'defending' themselves by waging war abroad. That is Doublethink.

Many people believe they can wage war to being peace. That is doublethink.

Many people believe that any attack against themselves is completely unjustified, while they are busy justifying their own attacks on others
that is doublethink.

Lets look at the 'self defence' argument again?
If I go into your house and You hit me with a baseball bat and i shoot you dead, would any reasonable person consider the killer to have been acting in self defence? Well, that is what is happening in Iraq. U.S. soldiers (and their proxy forces and paid mercenaries) are 'defending themselves' from 'insurgent/terrorist' attacks carried out by people fighting their occupation of their homes.

The same applies in palestine. Palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks on Palestinian land, are 'Attacking' the Israelis, and if the Israelis harm any of the palestinians, it's 'In self defence'

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth

fly_agaric

Akrasia wrote:

Yes you can. It's called doublethink.

A significant proportion of the U.S. population believe that 'America is under attack' and they are only 'defending' themselves by waging war abroad. That is Doublethink.

But the language itself hasn't done that. The lies and distortions of the truth themselves (e.g. Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Saddam had WMD) and the half-life of these lies in the mind of the public have done that.

In my up-down example you need the fake evidence that down is up. Just recasting the language used will not do.

Rebeller

fly_agaric wrote:

The old imperialists took advantage of this on occasion to help them control their colonies more easily. How exactly is the sectarian tension helping the US and the Iraqi govt. they support run Iraq more easily right now?
Your argument doesn't make sense

:rolleyes: sigh....

Read my post again. The US does not want a functioning state. The US wants to control the oilfields and maintain and establish permanent bases in the region now that that oh so heavenly democracy of Saudi Arabia is no longer such a sure bet.

Of course there will be violence and bloodshed once a power vacuum has been created. However, to suggest that maintaining an occupying force
will somehow improve the situation is pure fantasy.

The Corinthian

Rebeller wrote:

This belief is based upon various reports I've read along with my own knowledge and understanding of successive American interventions throughout the world.

We’ll take your word for it then... actually, let’s not...

With respects, you’ve come out with some pretty radical theories there and it would not be unreasonable for people to actually want to see credible sources and the logic in arriving at them.

Manic Moran

Rebeller wrote:

Read my post again. The US does not want a functioning state. The US wants to control the oilfields and maintain and establish permanent bases in the region

In order for that to be successful, they pretty much need to have a functioning state. Even if oil is the primary goal, a functioning state is an incidental which makes that goal a lot easier.

And as for bases, what's wrong with Kuwait? I never met anyone that was in Iraq via Saudi, indeed, I don't believe the US has a single base in Saudi, or has had one in Saudi for a few years.

NTM

Rebeller

The Corinthian wrote:

We’ll take your word for it then... actually, let’s not...

With respects, you’ve come out with some pretty radical theories there and it would not be unreasonable for people to actually want to see credible sources and the logic in arriving at them.

Fair enough.

If you're interested in gaining a better understanding of Iraq and what's really happening and likely to happen there you should have a look at the following books.

Robert Fisk: The Great War For Civilisation (Very rambling tome, not up to his usual standards but the chapter on Iraq is spot on)

Mohamed Heikal: Illusions of Triump: An Arab View Of The Gulf War (good for a non euro-us perspective)

Kanan Makiya: Republic of Fear... (not sure of the full title)

There are others.

Download the paper (in pdf format) from the following link to read a very US view of how to govern Iraq:

faculty.washington.edu/hechter/AttainingSocialOrderInIraq.pdf

I've developed my "theories" based on my own experiences and years of observation of Us and western actions throughout the world. If I could transpose my thoughts and experiences into a post I would.

There aren't any clear links I can point you to to give 100% support for my views. Knowledge is in itself somewhat subjective which means that two individuals presented with the same evidence may come to very differing conclusions. My understanding is based on what I have witnessed and experienced. It is therefore inherently subjective.

Educate yourself, learn about what imperialism really means to its victims. Learn how the world's power structures work.

fly_agaric

Rebeller wrote:

:rolleyes: sigh....

Read my post again. The US does not want a functioning state.

No. I don't think they wanted a weak failed state. They wanted a basically US-friendly functioning democracy. Selling oil to them. I suppose they dreamed it would be friendly to Israel too!

Rebeller wrote:

The US wants to control the oilfields and maintain and establish permanent bases in the region now

That may be about the "best" (considered from the point of view of their own interests) they can do now.

Rebeller wrote:

Of course there will be violence and bloodshed once a power vacuum has been created. However, to suggest that maintaining an occupying force
will somehow improve the situation is pure fantasy.

I believe the violence in Iraq will get much worse when/if the US pulls out and in addition all the jihadi chickens will be coming home to roost in a European city near you or me.
Maybe by staying in Iraq for now they are just putting off the inevitable evil day? That there is nothing else they can do but pull out now and cross their fingers? I don't know really.

Akrasia

fly_agaric wrote:

But the language itself hasn't done that. The lies and distortions of the truth themselves (e.g. Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Saddam had WMD) and the half-life of these lies in the mind of the public have done that.

In my up-down example you need the fake evidence that down is up. Just recasting the language used will not do.

you said this

Propagandists can phrase things in the way they think suits their point of view (insurgents, terrorists, the resistance; martyrs, suicide bombers, homicide bombers) but shouting that down is actually up can't actually make people think that down is up.

Propaganda is part lies and part spin and half truths. You said that even if you shout propaganda loud, it won't make people believe Down Is up, but the whole concept of doublethink (and the examples I provided) prove otherwise.

The fact that americans believe they are under attack while they acknowledge that the U.S. is really the one attacking other countries, proves that language and propaganda can make people think that down is up.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

In order for that to be successful, they pretty much need to have a functioning state. Even if oil is the primary goal, a functioning state is an incidental which makes that goal a lot easier.

Not necessarily. What are the functions of the nation state? to provide for the social political economic and security needs of the population (at least that's what they claim its for) Now, what if the Americans have no interest in providing these things for the iraqi people, if their only interest is strategic, then it is perfectly plausible that they would pursue a divide and rule strategy instead of building a successful stable state.
The U.S. has a long history, like other emperialists, of pillaging the resources of other peoples without any regard for the welfare of the people they are subjugating (Panama, Haiti, Nicoragua to name but a few examples)
In the Case of Iraq, their interest is in control of their natural resources. This does not necessarily mean control in order to exploit them, it means control in order to have a bigger influence over the global oil markets. The Iraqi Oil Industry is barely functioning at the moment. The media would have you believe that this is because of the unrest in Iraq, but according to Investigations by Greg Palast, the U.S. are deliberately keeping the Iraqi Oil off the market in order to secure massive massive profits for the Oil Companies who are so closely tied to the U.S. government.

Diogenes

Rebeller wrote:

I've developed my "theories" based on my own experiences and years of observation of Us and western actions throughout the world. If I could transpose my thoughts and experiences into a post I would.

So you a theory and no way of explaining it. Well thats not even a theory thats a guess.

No where in Fisks work that suggests he thinks what you do.

The US you claim just wants Iraq oil plants and their bases secure. But y'know they're going to need workers, so they need to provide security for the works. And of course to get the workers to work and the oil to the ports they're going to need secure roads, and a transport infrastructure. And they'll need secure ports as well.

And their workers will need somewhere to go home to and shops to by stuff, so they need to secure their homes, and their markets. These oil workers won't leave their children in danger, so you gotta secure those. And they'll want the toilets to flush and the lights to come on, so you gotta have power plants, and sewage reprocessing.

See I'm not even saying that I'm buying into your claim that they only want the oil to follow and their bases to be secured, I'm just pointing out the flaws in that premise.

Flaws anyone who has played classic Sim City, and has even a modicum of understanding of how 21th century society functions.

fly_agaric

Akrasia wrote:

you said this
Propaganda is part lies and part spin and half truths. You said that even if you shout propaganda loud, it won't make people believe Down Is up, but the whole concept of doublethink (and the examples I provided) prove otherwise.

The fact that americans believe they are under attack while they acknowledge that the U.S. is really the one attacking other countries, proves that language and propaganda can make people think that down is up.

I know this all has nothing to do with the thread so I'll stop here, but to repeat, my point was choosing the terms and labels you apply to suit your message (which propagandists do) is not enough to alter mindsets. Not that propaganda itself is not enough to alter mindsets (or cause a sort of doublethink).

You need the lies, "spin", and half truths. I think a recent poll showed that very many Americans believe Saddam had something do with Sept. 11th - which must have had a bearing on support for the Iraq war! That didn't happen just because the US govt. and the media called Saddam a "dictator" with a "regime" rather than a "sovereign ruler" with a "government"!

The language ditches term after term for the "intellectually disabled" (retarded, handicapped etc) as each one becomes tainted but the relabelling still can't change the prejudiced mindsets.
In the absence of a campaign to change the underlying mindsets the relabelling is a total waste of time.

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

The US you claim just wants Iraq oil plants and their bases secure. But y'know they're going to need workers, so they need to provide security for the works. And of course to get the workers to work and the oil to the ports they're going to need secure roads, and a transport infrastructure. And they'll need secure ports as well.

That really is nonsense.
By your logic, the likes of Nike and GAP would only have their factories in modern liberal democracies where there is a fully functioning state.

If the U.S. was only interested in Oil, all they would need to do is set secure commercial zones like they have around sweatshops all over the world.

And their workers will need somewhere to go home to and shops to by stuff, so they need to secure their homes, and their markets. These oil workers won't leave their children in danger, so you gotta secure those. And they'll want the toilets to flush and the lights to come on, so you gotta have power plants, and sewage reprocessing.

If chinese sweatshop workers and half of the worlds population are prepared to live in conditions like these, why would the Iraqis be any different?

Diogenes

Akrasia wrote:

That really is nonsense.
By your logic, the likes of Nike and GAP would only have their factories in modern liberal democracies where there is a fully functioning state.

If the U.S. was only interested in Oil, all they would need to do is set secure commercial zones like they have around sweatshops all over the world.

That really is nonsense. Here is a list of the most dangerous countries in the world

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bougainville, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Chechnya (Ichkeria), Colombia, Congo, Dagestan, East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, The Philippines, Russian, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey Uganda as well the most dangerous places in the United States.

http://www.fabuloustravel.com/shop/books/dangerousplaces.html

Heres a link to the location of all the countries nike have factories in

Do you see the list? They share one country. Mexico. And that list isn't in a hierarchal it's alphabetical. Mexico would come bottom of the list.

Nike and the Gap will set up in underdeveloped third world countries, but they set up in stable underdeveloped countries.

Companies like the Gap and Nike don't set up in warzones, and oil cannot be produced in a war zone.

If chinese sweatshop workers and half of the worlds population are prepared to live in conditions like these, why would the Iraqis be any different?

Is mortar fire, fake police checkpoints, and beheadings a daily occurance in China?

Or are you saying that once the "civil war" is over everything will be okay for these bases?

Whats your timetable for this civil war. Because the best guide we have to what way Iraq will go we need to look at Afganisatan, which after the soviets left had 15 years of civil war.

You really think the US is going to wait that long to get at Iraq's oil?

AbusesToilets

First off,Rebeller,Turkey did refuse the US the use of it's airspace etc for the invasion.This was why the northern campaign took longer to begin,forces had to be re-routed through Jordan and elsewhere.

Secondly,there is a government in Iraq,which was voted in by the Iraqi people under the supervision of the UN.Which would make those committing the violence against government forces insurgents.

As for the talk about propanganda,specifically referencing the fact that "most americans believe they are under attack",well it's not just the US that's under attack,it's pretty much any country that the islamic terrorist organisations decide to target.This has been going on for decades,is likely to continue,irrespective of the outcome in Iraq.Though i believe that a successful,representitive Iraqi government could do a lot to combat this.

imeddyhobbs

I agree with the OP's point that the outrage that the USA created in Iraq is mostly forgotten by the media and people in general.
If it were not for the BBC then i think the only people that would know there is actually a war(civil war)happening in Iraq are the victams familys that were dragged into this slaughter
I know i feel a sense of shame about the whole thing,its hard to belive that any so called civilised country can start unjustified war in this day and age and have any kind of support from anywhere,but it does have support and thats the very sad aspect
I think that part of the reason why people dont want to talk about important things like Iraq is because of an MTV type generation thing,if its any more that 3 minutes long then they get bored,they love the sensationalisation but they want it to come and go quickly,this is a media trait so they will be the first to do it,then the sheep follow.

AbusesToilets

I don't know where you getting the idea that the media has largely forgotten about the war,it's being discussed on at least one of the major networks in the states every day.Now as regards the quality of the debate,well that's a seperate thread altogether :rolleyes:

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

First off,Rebeller,Turkey did refuse the US the use of it's airspace etc for the invasion.This was why the northern campaign took longer to begin,forces had to be re-routed through Jordan and elsewhere.

Secondly,there is a government in Iraq,which was voted in by the Iraqi people under the supervision of the UN.Which would make those committing the violence against government forces insurgents.

As for the talk about propanganda,specifically referencing the fact that "most americans believe they are under attack",well it's not just the US that's under attack,it's pretty much any country that the islamic terrorist organisations decide to target.This has been going on for decades,is likely to continue,irrespective of the outcome in Iraq.Though i believe that a successful,representitive Iraqi government could do a lot to combat this.

80% of Iraqis want an immediate end to the occupation. How can there ever be a representative Iraqi government that ignores the will of 80% of the people?
Just because a government is 'elected' does not make it legitimate, (saddam won elections all of the time) it has to act according to the wishes of the people it is supposed to represent.

imeddyhobbs

Thats one of the questions that im sure not many people could answer in a timed quiz

Who is the current president of iraq?

Emmm
Ah
Emmmmmmmmmmm
pass

YaHoo
no,no
Google

Manic Moran

If I recall, the actual figure was 74%. (If this poll was about two weeks ago)

Unfortunately, the figure was in the 90s for an immediate cessation of violence by the various factions. (98% for Al Qaeda), and they don't seem to be listening either.

While most everyone wants the foreign troops out, that doesn't mean to say that everyone things that it's the best thing for them. Which is the least worst option?

NTM

imeddyhobbs

Manic Moran wrote:

If I recall, the actual figure was 74%. (If this poll was about two weeks ago)

Unfortunately, the figure was in the 90s for an immediate cessation of violence by the various factions. (98% for Al Qaeda), and they don't seem to be listening either.

While most everyone wants the foreign troops out, that doesn't mean to say that everyone things that it's the best thing for them. Which is the least worst option?

NTM

This post also quotes percentages,percentages that represents this posters opions.
Two words for ya,PICK and CHOOSE

Victor

mike65 wrote:

If the US pulled the plug, the Kurds would bail out in seconds as they have oil. The Sunnis would try to subsume them (and succeed through sheer numbers).

The Kurds are mostly Sunni, how can they subsume themselves? Or are you being simplistic in saying Sunni Arabs will subsume Sunni Kurds? Even though Sunni Kurds outnumber Sunni Arabs and the Sunni Arabs are, at this stage much better organised.

Rebeller

Diogenes wrote:

So you a theory and no way of explaining it. Well thats not even a theory thats a guess.

Theory = - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

- contemplation or speculation.

- guess or conjecture

Diogenes wrote:

No where in Fisks work that suggests he thinks what you do.

See above

Diogenes wrote:

The US you claim just wants Iraq oil plants and their bases secure. But y'know they're going to need workers, so they need to provide security for the works. And of course to get the workers to work and the oil to the ports they're going to need secure roads, and a transport infrastructure. And they'll need secure ports as well....

A functioning civil society is not required to rape the resources of a colonised country.

See East Timor, Colombia, Haiti etc etc. (point already covered by Akrasia)

Diogenes wrote:

See I'm not even saying that I'm buying into your claim that they only want the oil to follow and their bases to be secured, I'm just pointing out the flaws in that premise.

I am sure those dying in Iraq are not too concerned whether you "buy" into mine or anyone else's claim. This whole debate is purely academic from where we're all sitting.

Diogenes wrote:

Flaws anyone who has played classic Sim City, and has even a modicum of understanding of how 21th century society functions.

Hmmm...now I see where you're coming from. Negotiating your way around a virtual world created by EA games and using this experience to develop a world view? Now that's true understanding:D

AbusesToilets

How can there ever be a representative Iraqi government that ignores the will of 80% of the people?

I don't know about you but the large numbers of people voting for a representitive government in an election with international monitors would probably achieve that aim.Verified numbers versus a poll that uses extrapolated numbers to portray the entire populace

A functioning civil society is not required to rape the resources of a colonised country.

See East Timor, Colombia, Haiti etc etc. (point already covered by Akrasia)

So what resources are getting "raped" in these places and by who?

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

I don't know about you but the large numbers of people voting for a representitive government in an election with international monitors would probably achieve that aim.Verified numbers versus a poll that uses extrapolated numbers to portray the entire populace

Are you seriously suggesting that the Iraqi election was a satisfactory demonstration of true democracy?
Most of the candidates were kept a secret until the voting day because they were afraid that they would be killed if they tried to campaign. The voters had very little chance to inform themselves, but even still, the voters knew who to vote against, and overwhelmingly voted against the pro western candidates put forward by the americans. They voted for candidates they thought would secure an immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

If I recall, the actual figure was 74%. (If this poll was about two weeks ago)

Unfortunately, the figure was in the 90s for an immediate cessation of violence by the various factions. (98% for Al Qaeda), and they don't seem to be listening either.

While most everyone wants the foreign troops out, that doesn't mean to say that everyone things that it's the best thing for them. Which is the least worst option?

NTM

Well, here's a breakdown of the figures from a poll conducted in january 2006.





The figures are not new, poll after poll show that most Iraqis still want an immediate occupation pull out, they still believe that the American occupation is making the situation worse and that things will improve once the occupation ends.

According to the pentagon survey,
An Overwhelming majority of Sunnis support the 'insurgency' against U.S. troops (75%) and the support has increased massively since 2003 when only 13% of sunnis supported the attacks on occupation forces.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2470183

Diogenes

Rebeller wrote:

Theory = - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

- contemplation or speculation.

- guess or conjecture

Yeah, see and thats all well and good but you've claimed that your theory, is supported by Fisk, some book you cannot remember the title of, and a document that in no way supports your claim. And then muttered something about not being able to explain it. So that's not a proposed explaination, whose status is still conjectural, because you haven't given the facts that support your conjectures.

So you've got a theory based on ideal speculation which you yourself admit you cannot coherantly explain. So thats a guess.

A functioning civil society is not required to rape the resources of a colonised country.

See East Timor, Colombia, Haiti etc etc. (point already covered by Akrasia)

No I'm sorry a degree of a functioning civil society must exist. Should we examine the death toils in East Timor, Haiti, and Colombia? Are you really suggesting that they are in the calibre scale or scope of the Iraq conflict?

Hmmm...now I see where you're coming from. Negotiating your way around a virtual world created by EA games and using this experience to develop a world view? Now that's true understanding:D

Wow way to sidestep the points. How exactly would oil be moved from the bases workers protected, food and medical supplies delivered, oil transported to the depo, if the only things the US cared about was the oil wells and their bases.

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

No I'm sorry a degree of a functioning civil society must exist..... Are you really suggesting that they are in the calibre scale or scope of the Iraq conflict? ...Should we examine the death toils in East Timor

about 200,000 according to amnesty international (or 1/5 of the current population) during the Indonesian occupation (with considerable support from america) and hundreds of thousands interned in prison camps http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/oct1999albertqa.htm

Haiti

The Lancet reported that there were 8,000 murders and 35000 rapes in less than one year following the U.S. backed coup in 2004
Haiti has a population of 8 million, this is equivilent to 26000 deaths in Iraq in one year. (and it doesn't include any of the deaths not directly caused by violence)

and Colombia?

Colombia has been in a state of civil war for the last 36 years. Lowest estimates of the casualties are about 36,000, but nobody seems to be doing any comprehensive counts so the deaths could be far higher.(this figure doesn't include the deaths from gang and drug related violence)

AbusesToilets

Are you seriously suggesting that the Iraqi election was a satisfactory demonstration of true democracy?
Most of the candidates were kept a secret until the voting day because they were afraid that they would be killed if they tried to campaign. The voters had very little chance to inform themselves, but even still, the voters knew who to vote against, and overwhelmingly voted against the pro western candidates put forward by the americans. They voted for candidates they thought would secure an immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces

Satisfying to who,you?For an elcetion that took place in the middle of a war i'd say it was a pretty good demonstration of a peoples desire for a representative government.Moreso that canditates were willing to run,given the threat to their lives.And that they voted for canditates that want the US out,what of it?They would be pretty weak if they voted for those who want the US to stay.The US doesn't want their troops there long term either,despite what theories you subscribe to

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

Satisfying to who,you?For an elcetion that took place in the middle of a war i'd say it was a pretty good demonstration of a peoples desire for a representative government.Moreso that canditates were willing to run,given the threat to their lives.And that they voted for canditates that want the US out,what of it?They would be pretty weak if they voted for those who want the US to stay.The US doesn't want their troops there long term either,despite what theories you subscribe to

could you please explain to me what you think democracy actually is?

I'm dying to know.

You're sayin there is democracy in Iraq just because there was an election?


Oh, and if the U.S. aren't planning to stay, why are they building permanent bases all over the country and a fortress embassy bigger than Vatican city and visible from space?

Diogenes

Akrasia wrote:

about 200,000 according to amnesty international (or 1/5 of the current population) during the Indonesian occupation (with considerable support from america) and hundreds of thousands interned in prison camps http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/oct1999albertqa.htm

How many US factories are based in Eat Timor. I think you'll find that the majority of US industry in the region is in mainland Indonesia.

The Lancet reported that there were 8,000 murders and 35000 rapes in less than one year following the U.S. backed coup in 2004
Haiti has a population of 8 million, this is equivilent to 26000 deaths in Iraq in one year. (and it doesn't include any of the deaths not directly caused by violence)

Economies of Scale don't really equate in this sort of situation. Even if it did, the Iraq death toil is nearly four times as much, and would increase greatily if the Iraqi army didn't have the support of the US againist insurgents.

Colombia has been in a state of civil war for the last 36 years. Lowest estimates of the casualties are about 36,000, but nobody seems to be doing any comprehensive counts so the deaths could be far higher.(this figure doesn't include the deaths from gang and drug related violence)

How many US multinationals have factories in Colombia?

Again and I'm sorry for stating the bleeding obvious you are completely underestimating the scale of the insurgency if you feel that US oil companies could operate in the middle of a full scale civil war