Using propaganda.

Umm...yes it was. Removing Saddam, or 'regime change' in Iraq has been the official position of the US gov't since Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act



Actually, UK warplanes participated in Desert Fox 1998. Maybe you missed it? It was based on Saddam's continued resistence to allow UNSCOM inspectors in the country. http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/Factsheet/unscom.html




And you didn't know Saddam was an evil tyrant before 2003? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm
Your attempt to draw contrasts between Saddam's Iraq and Mugabe's Zimbabwe just don't wash.



Here we can possibly agree. Having been a part of campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it seemed to me the Pentagon and the administration had no plan for what to do with Iraq after toppling Saddam. This is where I'm critical of the administration for failing to understand the political conditions within Iraq and what the power vaccum would unleash. You almost had the feeling that Rumsfeld really thought the Iraqis would join hands and sing 'Cum by ya' and we could leave.

Overall though, it's pretty clear it's intellectually dishonest of you to oppose toppling Saddam but favor ousting Mugabe, especially if your justification is that Mugabe is a tyrant.
 
Okay, not being someone who regularly reads unscom factsheets and doesn't believe a word wikipedia says, I can say that I simply wasn't privy to the same information as you.

Now, as for me being dishonest? Nope, sorry. There is a massive difference between misrepresenting information, and not knowing the information in the first place. You could call me misinformed(), but not dishonest()!

Anywho, as intellectually stimulating as this all is, it is all by-the-by and completely

Apologies for the thread heist guys n gals, normal service can resume forthwith!
 
No, no, no; not 'dishonest' as in 'you're a lier' but intellectually dishonest meaning you're viewpoints are inconsistent despite the similar situational circumstances and the preponderance of evidence. However, if you truly didn't know all that stuff about Saddam, I can't but help but ask: how are you sure your anti-war stance is based on facts and not anti-war propaganda? Clearly you either didn't have the information or decided to look the other way. If you don't know about the 1998 law, or the UN resolution violations, or even the 1998 bombing campaign, how do you know the conclusions you've reached about the war take into consideration all the facts? If you didn't know that other stuff, what else are you possibly ill-informed about? If you really didn't know, jumping up and down about how 'unjust' the war is makes you look like all you can do is parrot others. How can you be sure it really is 'unjust' when you clearly don't have all the facts?
 
Agreed it's not new. What's different is the strategic importance it plays. In prior generations of warfare, propaganda was used to drum up support on the home front and in the ranks to increase the morale of the men and encourage them to fight. It's purpose was to assist tactical success on the battlefield. Today, it's used as end to itself, where battlefield tactics are designed not for battlefield success, but for strategic propaganda success. Roadside bombings are a good example. The roadside IED that destroys a truck and kills a soldier or two does almost nothing to erode the combat effectiveness of a western military. Instead, it ensures a stream of negative reporting on CNN and BBC which in turn affects the political support for the war. You see it's reversed now. Propaganda used to be a tool to support success on the battlefield. Now, success on the battlefield is secondary to success in the political arena at home and propaganda becomes the reason for initiating a tactical operation.
 
Quite simply, I can't. How can you be sure your opinion supporting it isn't based on pro-war propaganda? I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here though.

I based my opinion on information freely available to the general public - ie, news reports, documentaries, and 1st hand accounts from friends and family in the Armed Forces. From all those sources the same story keeps coming up: The UK went in looking for (IMHO) fictional WMD's, and as a by-product Saddam's regime was deposed. The UK troops that I have spoken to and been around have never had any more of a plan than 'Get rid of Saddam', which is why they, and consequently I, believe that it was a last minute thing thrown together by the Powers That Be. If the US has had a different agenda, then once again we have an awesome example of Allied forces not really playing nice together....
And just to reiterate once more - I am NOT anti-war. I am ANTI-IRAQ. I have seen too many people who I consider friends either injured or killed in a conflict that even they no longer want to be involved in. If the purpose of the war was to remove Saddam and introduce democracy, then once again (to quote Charlie Wilson) 'We ****ed up the end-game'. I still don't believe that was the purpose though. It may have been a convenient reason, but I stand by my judgement that Saddam was an Osama substitute. Can't find one villain? Hell, anyone else bad will do!



In 1998 I was 19. I was at university and didn't give a damn about the world, I was only interested in three things - money, beer and women (not necessarily in that order ). Thankfully my attitudes changed, and I now take an interest in world events, mainly through the influence of the friends I have in the Armed Forces. (Who were, may I add, also the biggest drunken eejits the world has ever seen at that time) Apologies if my teenage self didn't pay attention enough to warrant forming an opinion now.
I base my opinions on what I know now, through all the sources listed above. However....



...this is a very good point!
Earlier, someone made the comparison to Vietnam, with no-one wanting to watch images of death over dinner. DC makes a very good point that propaganda and small moral victories are more important than a successful campaign in modern warfare.
Surely then we can't believe anything we are shown/told by our own government during a period of conflict? The press here in the UK has already proven that they are willing to 'black out' certain stories, so does anyone actually have 'all the facts'? Or, similarly to Vietnam, WWI, WWII, Korea etc etc, are we only going to learn what is really happening in twenty years when our kids come home and say "I can't believe the public didn't know what was really going on."
To go back to the OP, perhaps we are already seeing propaganda being used by Allied forces, it's just that we don't know it!
 
Wasn't there a major battle fought in Vietnam that was essentially a huge PR event? I know I read something about stuff like this all the time in that conflict. Ya know, sites that have absolutely zero tactical value, but troops were sent in because the folks back home needed a victory?

Maybe the issue isn't warfare changing, it's the fact that since the 60's, what happens on the battlefield in the morning, is reported in the homes that evening. Or, is happening live, to bring it right up to date!!

Surely if we weren't seeing the after-effects of conflict live on CNN and the BBC every evening at 6, the need for 'propaganda attacks' would lessen, because they woudln't have the same impact.

I'm rambling, but I guess my point is this: Does the media coverage of a conflict actually place troops in harm's way? (more than they are, obviously!)

If the terrorists who execute guys on camera knew that the footage would never be seen, would they still do it?
 
My persional opinion is that they want an audience if you dont have one theres not much point in performing. Im guessing that they would probably just get it over with and shoot them instead.
There is one other thought that comes to mind and that is that some people on this planet enjoy killing and would do this for self satisfaction.
 
Back
Top