bangla2000 Home b2k Interactive  Home all   bulletins New Members Sign Up b2k Members Sign In
Friday, October 20, 2017 BD

Groups
Anything Group


Bulletins Participate in the Bulletin
Enter Your Opinion
Click to add Emoticons.
blush confused cool cry eek frown biggrin
evilgrin supergrin kiss lol smile love mad
redface rolleyes sweat tongue trippy winky alien
devil happy indifferent nerd ohwell sick tired


Bulletins Bulletin : Published and Discussed
Date: Saturday, September 27, 2003
From: cluster11
Subject:
For Sb & ima
Description:


Thx for the nice posting Sb. Let me try to answer your and ima's followup based on the points you have raised.

The issue of my post was not whether the public representation was an effect of propaganda. My response was to erroneous comaprison of George W. Bush with a serial killer.

A serial killer is a person who pathologically kills innocent victims without any apparent motive. Neither George Bush nor Tony Blair fits that description. They are politician and by nature, most politicians will do things for their personal and party gains and then national security. International peace is not a first priority, expecially for American politicians, in post 9-11 era. Thats just the sad reality.

Now lets see what George W. Bush did. Since 9/11, Bush has introduced his "Bush Doctrine" which identifies any country that harbors terrorist or supports terrorist and/or have potential to use WMD for a terroristic purposes is deemed an enemy. The Bush doctrine also justifies pre-emptive strike against these enemy countries.

Iraq does not fall in this category even though it was termed as one of the 'axis of evil' countries in Bush' State of the Union speech. The real threat according to this definition are Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and possibly Somalia. But Iraq qualifies as a target for several reasons. First, to be able to strike any of these countries, an important strategic U.S. base need to be established in close vicinity. Second, if Iraq is attacked and conquered, it will have a scare impact on the potential enemies of United states in the region. Third and most important, politically there were over a dozen U.N. resolutions passed against Iraq. Including the Novemebr resolution that passed by 15-0 in the security council which warned of 'serious consequences'. So Iraq was strategically important and politically expandanble. Not to mention its ruler Saddam was a ruthless dictator whom none of the arab countries liked anyway.

Notice I havent brought up WMD or oil. These are the two points "hyped up" by the two opposing camps. Bush administration and anti-war zealots. In reality neitehr of these two points were important. No matter how much the administration touted about WMD and the freedom of Iraqi ppl, majority of the americans did not even care if Iraq had WMD or not. What they did care is that the United States kick some a** in the middle east because to the average american the biggest threat today are islamic terrorists. If you are wondering why they think this way I can explain that to you in detail in antoher post. What so many people outside U.S. dont consider is the Sept-11 incident has changed the American mentality forever. The public will rather see the battle and bloodshed happen in the streets of Baghdad or Lebanon than New York or Los Angeles. And to do that they know these terrorists have to be destroyed in their home bases. Iraq war is seen as a beginning of that effort.

So the public support to this war, while a bit influenced by supportive media, mainly grew out of 9-11 attack. Bottom line, if 9-11 never happened, the Iraq war would not have happened. This is America's superpower reflex when a giant is bitten - as straight forward as that. However, the post-war planning done by the Bush Administration has been a complete failure. George Bush is neitther a shrewd politician like his father, nor a strong statesman like Reagan or even charismatic like Bill Clinton. He is surrounded by advisors like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield who have too much right-wing view ill-suited for a stable superpower. Hence, the Iraq quagmire. But the situation today in Iraq can hardly justify calling George W. Bush or Tony Blair serial killers. They are politicians looking after their party and national interest. Ironically, its quite possible that the Iraq War may be the downfall of George Bush if the situation deteroites. But the American public overwhelmingly thinks going into Iraq was a justified decision. Whether George Bush had the strength to push it beyond and strike at the root of islamic terrorists (such as countries like Pakistan) remains to be seen. If another incident like 9-11 happens then there is a real such possibility.

On a sidenote, since you mentioned newspaper, reading the bangladeshi newspapers such as Daily Star and especially Ittefaq, I have noticed that they are extremely biased in favor of anti-american mentality. It was hilarious how in the final days of the war in Baghdad Ittefaq's reporting sounded like the American troops are running for their lives. That war was won in 21 days and if u remember less than 30 of Iraq's 800 tanks survived not to mention other annihilated weapons. Of course one could argue that the war was switched to guerilla action after 21 days but I am giving examples of false reporting during major combat from a newspaper which did not even have a correspondent on the ground. CNN (not BBC - I found their war coverage one of the most impartial) also had issues favoring the Bush Administration popagranda too much. So I wouldnt rely much on day to day newspaper opinions. The actual events take a few days to unfold. You just have to use your best judgement and use a vareity of new resources from different countries to get a good picture. Especially from sources which has people on the ground. I know of numerous examples, even in B2K ppl asking me, of misconception about American mentality or events in post 9-11 era. Some deshi news accounts are no different.

ClusterOne


People Discussion
Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Cluster bhaia, i didnt comment on your full posting. I only highlighted the following quotation of yours and some relevant
follow-ups.


"What you conveniently forget is over 70% of Americans favored going into Iraq. While the pretense may have been hyped up yb the White House, Bush DID NOT go against the people's will in attacking Iraq. That is "popular representaion "

Not going into details of B-doctrine [which itself is a controversial one] ,
I personally dont know if all the 'facts' and 'figures' [not B-B facts and figures] were made public, what % of US and British population would have supported going into war.



Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Recent poll-results [a time when 'facts' are coming out] show that about 62% Britons think Small B should quit and was wrong in supporting his
big B in goin to war. Whereas poll carried out by the same instituition before the war showed an overwhelming 67% supporting the war.

The situation is more or less same in the USA. While there was a hysterical support for the war; with new facts and info coming out, 55% of the
population are against it now !!

Had all information and data were available to the public, and the analysis of security experts were not hyped up and in some cases retarded, I wonder how many
people would have supported going into war !!!

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

And ur observation that "So the public support to this war, while a bit influenced by supportive media, mainly grew out of 9-11 attack. " - It was blew out
of proportion by the 2 governments and the media itself had a part to in it.

Achieving popular support by playing on and exacerbating people`s sentiments [post 9/11 era] and through
exaggerative propoganda, doesnt reflect true popular opinion.

Does it??????

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Another point. And quoting u

" 'Third and most important, politically there were over a dozen U.N. resolutions passed against Iraq. Including the Novemebr resolution
that passed by 15-0 in the security council which warned of 'serious consequences'. So Iraq was strategically important and
politically expandanble. "

Did any of the resolutions mentioned that USA can go onto war without UN mandate? And although Mr B used the term 'serious consequences' in his favour, did he actually
bother to seek a UN Security Council resolution paving the way to go for war in Iraq with UN support? He didnt. Because he knew only 2 or at maximum 3 countries would have voted in
favour. And in UNGA? that was out of question! A resolution like 3/4 -167 against un-approved UN war, wouldnt agour well for Mr B.

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

And umm.. yeah i mostly read BD newspapers, well not all :s only 2 Independent and Ds. But
I also watch/ed CNN and BBC. and i didnt use any figures or data which were published in Bd newspapers
The sources are online foreign newspaper sites and ofcourse foreign electronic media, which provide
uncensored broadcast in Bd.

Sorry for the broken-up responses. I couldnt put all those under a single response.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Thanks for the responses and questions Sb. As I pointed out in the post, the Bush administration's reasoning to go to the war - WMD, Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda and non-compliance with UN resolutions, were not the key reasons for public support for the war. You mentioned polls, then you probably have also seen in the polls that despite Bush's popularity going below 50% still majority of Americna thinks the war was justified.

The reasons Bush administration gave for going to the war would never pass the Congress or get public support if 9-11 did not happen. Let me explain as well how this fear has grown since then.

ClusterOne


cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

The reasons given officially by the Bush Administration to go to war were necessary for them to get other nations involved. It didnt quite work but they tries anyway. What the american public demands is that the commander-in-chief does everything possible to ensure national security. True none of the U.N. resolution gave U.S. the license to wage war on Iraq but as I said, George Bush tried as much as possible to use the passed resolutions to his political advantage and justify the war. There was no other enemy nation that has such bad track record with the U.N. except Iraq. Attacking iraq just met the criteria I mentioned above for the Bush doctrine.

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

See, today many months after the war there is still no WMD, the Bush administration has admitted Saddam had no hands in 9-11 and Iraq is a very volatile region. Why do you think still on all the AP polls when asked the question "Do you think the Iraq war was justified?" most americans vote Yes! Because since 9-11 terrorists havent just sat around, they have actively tried to hit the U.S. and its allies. In fact removal of Saddam gave Al-Qaeda and other terrorist allies an opportunity to battle it out in Iraq. Until terrorists who use islamic fundamentalism as an excuse for their action are wiped out actions like the war in Iraq or Afghanistan will continue to be supported by the public.

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

We kind of strayed away from the original discussion of ima comparing Bush and Blair to serial killers. But thats ok, these are good points you raised. I wanted to show the reasonings behind the Iraq war and the public support. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion. I did not support the Iraq war, I think Iran and Pakistan are much worse threat. But the strategic and political reality is Iraq was a much easier target. So I understand why the Iraq war happened. If it does bring Goerge Bush's downfall in the next election I won't be a least bit unhappy. The fact still remains that the war against terrorism goes on and the american public will justify similiar actions in the future that my have seemed illogical before 9-11.


Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Hm, my question still remains the same, about the so called 'popular representation'.

Historically US citizens typically support their government because they believe they must do so to be patriotic. But, the violence of the US government is largely hidden
from US citizens. The citizens pay for the violence, but are mostly unaware of what their government is doing. Although a high percentage of U.S. citizens initially supported the U.S. government's war in
Iraq, it is a blind kind of support that does not mean that there is or has to be a comprehension.

[uncensored production of an online article]

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis; none was an Iraqi.

"The results startled even the pollsters who conducted and analyzed the surveys. How could so many people be so wrong about information that has dominated news coverage for almost two years?"


Now Should it come up as a major surprise that, Many Americans were once in favour of going for war in Iraq?????

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

***An opinion poll in the United States indicates that only 39 per cent of Americans
now support the war against Iraq.

***And the survey by Newsweek shows that support for the current military invasion
dropped to 31 per cent,


***A new ABC News poll shows about half of them say they approve, down from 70 percent in April, when major combat operations were still underway.



Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

there is a definite and clear trend of declining no. of people who now support the war on Iraq.

and the popular representation was mainly achieved thru false and hyped up propagandas and accusations. And with the picture now becoming clearer to US pepole, who knows whether in future even 10% will support the war in IRAQ
[and the declining support is not only because of the no. of casualties of US servicemen in USA. It has got something to do with the very basic reasons for going into war]

Sb
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Anyways, morar Bush re nia bahot matha ghamaisi.. r ichha nai

Clusty bhaia my point was about ' popular representation' , onno gula na like.. psycho killer or something

But it was nice to get everyone`s view

ima
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

next topic ta ki hobe ..oi ta niye chinta korchi.. ..!!! good to know that cluster was against the war..although i am a non-violent person..when i meet someone who supported the war..oder ke jobai korte ichche hoy.. ....!!!

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

Well Sb, "popular representation" means existing public support. At the time the U.S. went to war 70% of the public (just as you noted) were in favor of it. Pointing that the percentage has dropped now significantly of course had no effect on the Bush Administration's decision back then, before the war. In any representative government, hyping up (or even generating false report) to gain public support maybe un-ethical but still legal as long as no law of the land (i.e. law of U.S.) has been broken. What I think you are either misunderstanding or avoiding is the fact that if 9-11 did not happen, Bush administration would never be able to convince the american public with this type of propaganda.

cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

If you look at the big picture of things that happened in the past 2 yrs and America's foreign policy on pre 9-11 (including the Bush Administration's) than just focusing on the past few months I hope you will see the big picture. That the public support for iraq invasion in U.S. would never happened without 9-11.

ClusterOne


cluster11
(Sunday, September 28, 2003)

ima,
quoting you "good to know that cluster was against the war..although i am a non-violent person..when i meet someone who supported the war..oder ke jobai korte ichche hoy".
You are missing on both counts here again. First, my being for or against the war should not justify your calling someone a serial killer. Second, that very attitude of wanting to slit someone's throat (even if said in a jest) because they disagree with your viewpoint gives you ZERO credence for any viable discussion. In fact that attitude have gotten some ppl in trouble lately - I sincerely hope any authorative figure does not share your viewpoints about disagreement.

ClusterOne

ima
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

cluster take it easy, my god it was a JOKE, u should not take everything so seriously, take a chill pill. I don't expect everyone to share my view, far from it. I think u are just upset that i am putting bush into the same leage as serial killers, hence the major blow up..seriously if i have offended with my petty joke ,,,than i am sicerely sorry ..that was not my intention at all..!!!

Sb
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

"In any representative government, hyping up (or even generating false report) to gain public support maybe un-ethical but still legal as long as no law of the land (i.e. law of U.S.) has been broken"

That was my very point Clusty bhai.

"..hyping up (or even generating false report) to gain public support " Should it be really called a popular representation? Legally..YES u might call it. karon if a referendum was held on Iraq issue, prolly Mr B would have won it. But the fact remains that the people who wud vote were being misguided thru false, made-up. dcotored information.

But had all the info were available and made open to US public, could have there been a Popular representation???
We know many Criminals, Culprits Court e innocent verdict peye, book fulaye ghure beray society te. they are legally "not criminals" "innocentin the eyes of law"

But are they really??????

cluster11
(Monday, September 29, 2003)

"cluster take it easy, my god it was a JOKE, u should not take everything so seriously, take a chill pill. I don't expect everyone to share my view, far from it. I think u are just upset that i am putting bush into the same leage as serial killers, hence the major blow up..seriously if i have offended with my petty joke ,,,than i am sicerely sorry ..that was not my intention at all..!!! "

Apology accepted. If your view is agaist the Iraq war and Bush's foreign policy I welcome any good discussion. But you labelled them serial killers and opined slitting others' throats when they disagree with you. That was wrong to say and shows who was upset. I am glad you see that.



Copyright Bangla2000. All Rights Reserved.
About Us  |  Legal Notices  |  Contact for Advertisement