rayj wrote:

trilonaut wrote:as far as i can tell...

bush takes reagan's evil farther.

the only thing that i think was worse under reagan is the fear of nuclear apocalypse. but hey, some neocons want to go in that direction with the mini-nukes (gateway drug?).

I'm pretty sure the Nuke 'threats' of the Regan era were useful propoganda to keep the respective populations in check. I don't feel that secure about making that statement under the Bush...

This is an aside...

One of the common observations I see in political discussions on this board is this notion that "threats" are really propaganda used for control purposes.

Terrorists? Mostly not real. It's our own government trying to mess with your head. And maybe they're behind the attacks that are real too.

Security Checks at the airport? A big show to make you appreciate fascism.

Hezbollah planning to wipe out Israel? They don't really mean it. It's just posturing made in self-defense.

Rockets dropping on Israel? C'mon, those are just firecrackers, and Israel is a huge military force. Israel is just using them as an excuse.

Do folks think that there are literally meetings where they get together and decide that "the public is feeling a bit overconfident...so let's dream up a threat that *we* know is bogus, but they don't. Let's scare them back into submission."

This, to me, seems like a comic book scenario. I seriously doubt it ever happens.

I think the various leaders who cite these threats, at worst, actually believe them to be true, but given a universe of threats they single these out because either they are the ones they can actually address, or they are the ones that trigger an "outrage factor."

e.g. "Terrorists are real. Bad health care is real. Solving the latter is expensive and objectionable to my base...I'm not even sure it *can* be fixed. But terrorism is something that might get me re-elected."

or

e.g. "Terrorists are real. Drunk driving is real too. In fact drunk driving is a much greater threat to the average person (at this time) than a terrorist attack. But people are sort of used to living in the midst of random traffic accidents. Individuals may be outraged by specific accidents, but the public as a whole is not outraged by the never ending drunk driving death toll. But for whatever emotional reason, people are outraged by terrorists. Accidents are accidents, but terrorists are evil. So that's what I'll talk about."

Anyway, getting back to the reality of nuclear threats, you only have to look at the Cuban missile Crisis to see how close we got to a nuclear exchange.

The USSR folding was also a chaotic situation that could have resulted in nuclear weapons flying. There may yet be some kind of nuclear attack that will trace back to the loss of nuclear weapons or materials when the USSR fell apart.

galanter wrote:One of the common observations I see in political discussions on this board is this notion that "threats" are really propaganda used for control purposes.

The majority of people posting here are not debating whether terrorists exist, or whether security checks have any value, or whether Hezbollah is hostile to Israel, or whether rockets were fired.

Most are questioning how these things are exploited by politicians to achieve ulterior motives, or how they are incompletely contextualized in the media.

Refusing to take a threat at face value is different than questioning its existence. This administration has made rigorous, constant skepticism absolutely necessary.

galanter wrote:Do folks think that there are literally meetings where they get together and decide that "the public is feeling a bit overconfident...so let's dream up a threat that *we* know is bogus, but they don't. Let's scare them back into submission."

This, to me, seems like a comic book scenario. I seriously doubt it ever happens.


e.g. "Terrorists are real. Bad health care is real. Solving the latter is expensive and objectionable to my base...I'm not even sure it *can* be fixed. But terrorism is something that might get me re-elected."

or

e.g. "Terrorists are real. Drunk driving is real too. In fact drunk driving is a much greater threat to the average person (at this time) than a terrorist attack. But people are sort of used to living in the midst of random traffic accidents. Individuals may be outraged by specific accidents, but the public as a whole is not outraged by the never ending drunk driving death toll. But for whatever emotional reason, people are outraged by terrorists. Accidents are accidents, but terrorists are evil. So that's what I'll talk about."

Anyway, getting back to the reality of nuclear threats, you only have to look at the Cuban missile Crisis to see how close we got to a nuclear exchange.

The USSR folding was also a chaotic situation that could have resulted in nuclear weapons flying. There may yet be some kind of nuclear attack that will trace back to the loss of nuclear weapons or materials when the USSR fell apart.

I absolutely guarantee that the secret 'comic book' meetings about keeping the public paranoid do indeed happen. Not in the 'Legion of Doom' -style way, but in the realm of Public Relations. A great way to see this is to take a class...in advertising, PR, whatever. Look at the budgets for the PR industry in this country. Glance through the memos, and look at historical political PR. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is exactly what happens.

The few real threats of a genuine nuclear exchange were largely the product of allowing the situation to get out of hand in the first place. The Cuban Missle Crisis seems to be the only legitimate one, as far as I can tell...and that was due to our fearless president's unreasonable judgement. Criminal, and largely our fault. As far as the USSR goes...I don't for one second believe that either country was ever prepared to go to the extreme of perpetrating a nuclear exchange. Several declassified memos state as such. C'mon. You have to be an absolute maniac to even follow that route, and most people in positions of power are all about the 'control' aspect of politics. You can't control anything under a mushroom cloud.

Mazec wrote:At least under Reagan America was not viewed as a quasi- pariah state.

Or, under Reagan it was viewed as a quasi-pariah state; Bush II has made sure the "quasi" has been dropped.

ps where's clocker bob these days?

rayj wrote:
I absolutely guarantee that the secret 'comic book' meetings about keeping the public paranoid do indeed happen. Not in the 'Legion of Doom' -style way, but in the realm of Public Relations. A great way to see this is to take a class...in advertising, PR, whatever. Look at the budgets for the PR industry in this country. Glance through the memos, and look at historical political PR. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is exactly what happens.

I understand how PR works in general, but I'd like to see evidence that there are meetings where the agenda reads "Ideas to make the public paranoid".

(Just to be clear I'm saying they might have meetings along the lines of "In our hearts we know Iraq is a WMD threat, so how can we spin the evidence to make the case", but *not* "You and I know Iraq is no real threat, but the American people need to be kept in fear, so how can we create a false threat to keep them paranoid and docile". The later seems like a comic book scenario without specific evidence that it has ever happened. Even the Woodward books and so on don't claim this has happened so far as I know")

rayj wrote:The few real threats of a genuine nuclear exchange were largely the product of allowing the situation to get out of hand in the first place. The Cuban Missle Crisis seems to be the only legitimate one, as far as I can tell...and that was due to our fearless president's unreasonable judgement. Criminal, and largely our fault.

"Our fault"? What the hell are you talking about?

In any case, a nuclear exchange could have easily been triggered. Unknown to the US Cuba also had tactical nuclear weapons. Their rules of engagement were that those weapons were to be used if the US tried a frontal attack. One of the plans offered Kennedy was such an attack. Those offering that plan had no idea that it would or could result in a tactical nuclear weapon being used. But if such tactical nuclear weapons were used the likely response would have been nuclear weapons being used against Cuba. And things could have escalated from there. Fortunately Kennedy opted for a blockade. It would be years later that we would find out that by doing so a tactical nuclear response was avoided.

galanter wrote:I understand how PR works in general, but I'd like to see evidence that there are meetings where the agenda reads "Ideas to make the public paranoid".

I'd like to be in that meeting too.

Prolly something like, "Latest polls show that support for ______ is on the wane,
I therefor suggest we..." I doubt any group of people (short of the Bavarian
Illuminatus) come out and say, "Hey, you know what? We should fuck the
the clothier's industry..."

galanter wrote:(Just to be clear I'm saying they might have meetings along the lines of "In our hearts we know Iraq is a WMD threat, so how can we spin the evidence to make the case", but *not* "You and I know Iraq is no real threat, but the American people need to be kept in fear, so how can we create a false threat to keep them paranoid and docile". The later seems like a comic book scenario without specific evidence that it has ever happened. Even the Woodward books and so on don't claim this has happened so far as I know")

OK, so how about "our business pals are counting on us to make them shitloads of money off the taxpayers' expense, and the more money they make off the taxpayers, the more our stock portfolios will baloon when we can leave office and reclaim them again, so let's drum up a phony war threat in Iraq, award our pals billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts, and then get voted back onto their boards of directors when we're out of office?"

If there's money to be made in keeping the public paranoid, i don't doubt those meetings happen.

DrAwkward wrote:

galanter wrote:(Just to be clear I'm saying they might have meetings along the lines of "In our hearts we know Iraq is a WMD threat, so how can we spin the evidence to make the case", but *not* "You and I know Iraq is no real threat, but the American people need to be kept in fear, so how can we create a false threat to keep them paranoid and docile". The later seems like a comic book scenario without specific evidence that it has ever happened. Even the Woodward books and so on don't claim this has happened so far as I know")

OK, so how about "our business pals are counting on us to make them shitloads of money off the taxpayers' expense, and the more money they make off the taxpayers, the more our stock portfolios will baloon when we can leave office and reclaim them again, so let's drum up a phony war threat in Iraq, award our pals billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts, and then get voted back onto their boards of directors when we're out of office?"

If there's money to be made in keeping the public paranoid, i don't doubt those meetings happen.

Again, there is no evidence of this that I know of.

While it's true that people move between industry and government work, and the rich bigwigs often have ego-driven expectations of entitlement, mere correlation doesn't imply causation. i.e. Just because someone used to work for Haliburton and then is later involved in government work related to war, that doesn't mean the war is merely a means to profit making.

Movement of people between industry and government can, of course, create conflict of interest situations in lots of areas...medical, environmental, mining, telecommunications...the list is nearly endless. It's something to be concerned about.

But the charge that people are knowingly creating unneeded wars merely to make profits is a really harsh one. Harsh charges should require strong proof.

It seems to me much more likely that hawks, right or wrong, are sincere about being hawks, and that both government and industrial work that they do follows (rather than precedes) that commitment.

i.e. They aren't hawks because it makes them money. They are hawks first, and they gravitate towards work that is consistent with that.

Urgh. OK, since the idea of the government, say, using PR to support the need for wildly unpopular invasions can be a difficult concept to grasp, I'll post a more domestic example to illustrate.

This gay marriage thing that has been going on...you have seen the copy describing those against gay marriage as 'in defense of marriage'. When I first heard that term, I didn't know what in the world they were talking about. Our cognition of the term 'Defending Marriage' is different than of the term 'Gays shouldn't be allowed to legally marry'.

You don't hold 'secret meetings' to 'twist the mind of the population'...good grief. You hold meetings to 'discuss policy' and decide 'how to present that policy to the public'. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I don't feel the immediate need to be 'convinced' of anything. I always welcome information....i.e. "Iraqi forces have amassed at the US/Mexican border and are preparing to invade (photos of Iraqi troops and armaments poised to march into the country). I reject spin and hearsay, which is absolutely rampant.

PR is largely the practice of presenting a winning case to the public at large. Nothing sinister about that...unless you take the next step and say that PR doesn't need a foundation in any sort of reality to be effective. It helps if it is, because it becomes much easier to make the case, but it certainly isn't necessary.

The threat of WMD's in Iraq, to use your example, is a prime example of this. No significant evidence, inspectors backing out, and yet PR has a lot of people believing that the 9-11 bombers were working for Saddam for chrissakes. The related media campaigns were extensive and well designed to implicitly influence everyone to make those sort of connections.

There were no 'making the people paranoid' meetings, but I can guarantee you that there were many, many serious meetings working on how to present information supporting a case for invading Iraq. If you think about that, and then you think about how many people in this country were actually directly threatened by Iraqi forces (zero), then it shouldn't be difficult to see how effective PR can be at 'influencing proper attitides in the general populace.'

And, as far as the Cuban Missle Crisis goes, research it a little more. I'll dig up some stuff if you like. A good thing to do is ask some older people what they thought. The majority of my family...mostly Republicans...always talked about how President Kennedy nearly brought us to the brink because of his stalwart refusal to reasonably negotiate with Cuba. The reasons for that whole situation are tied up with Castro's refusal to obey Washington's economic policies. Without a proper context, you could paint the situation as 'Cuban/Communist aggression', but that is balderdash.

galanter wrote:Again, there is no evidence of this that I know of.

I didn't say there was evidence. You were all "such-and-such sounds comic booky," and i was merely throwing out a scenario that i think is quite realistic, regardless of evidence.

Anyway, what kind of evidence of this would be even possible to aquire? Recorded conversations of Bush and Cheney specifically saying "we started this war to make our pals in the defense and oil industries richer?" If you ask me, the circumstantial evidence and close relations between all these scumbags is enough to at least accept the theory as a possibility or even a liklihood, even if it's not enough to damn them in the public eye and send them to the metal clink where they will not see night or day.