the anti-American bandwagon

[mihalll]

Originally posted by rhizome17
I am not trying to compare Hitler and Bush (do I really have to point that out?). However my comparison is valid when you compare the process. In 1939, Germany needed to expand its sphere of territorial influence to enhance the economic resources at its disposal. Those of us in the UK, Australia, Canada etc. were allies against this expansionism.
In the present day, it is the US that needs to expand its sphere of territorial influence to enhance the economic resources at its disposal. Those of us in the UK, Australia, Canada etc. are being asked to be allies in favour of this expansionism.

Yes, it is expanding in both cases - and its the only similarity. But when you're saying things like: look at the USA v Iraque and Nazi Gremany v Poland you give it an obvious implied meaning, even if it wasnt your real intention. Look at my post above... your comparisons are too superficial to me

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by mihalll
Yes, it is expanding in both cases - and its the only similarity. But when you're saying things like: look at the USA v Iraque and Nazi Gremany v Poland you give it an obvious implied meaning, even if it wasnt your real intention. Look at my post above... your comparisons are too superficial to me

er, no, it is not about making an obvious implied meaning, it is about your interpretation of the comparison. I have already made myself clear on a number of occasions that I was not comparing Bush to Hitler etc., it appears to be only you who doesn't seem to get that one.

 

[mihalll]

Originally posted by rhizome17
er, no, it is not about making an obvious implied meaning, it is about your interpretation of the comparison. I have already made myself clear on a number of occasions that I was not comparing Bush to Hitler etc., it appears to be only you who doesn't seem to get that one.

 

[rhizome17]

Article on the new propaganda war...

It used to be a joke, and not really a subtle one: America™, the world's "greatest democracy" reduced to a sales meme of the same order as Burger King or Ben & Jerry's. But times have changed - no? - and the term Brand America is now used without embarrassment or even irony. Branding is the new national megaproject, as serious as the guns-and-ammo war on terror or the quest to inflate a new bull market.

The challenge, as grand old adman Allen Rosenshine has put it, is that millions of non-Americans are "still in the process of being taught to hate us." Which suggests that somewhere out there, someone's doing the teaching. Professor bin Laden, no doubt, but who else? French farmers? Canadian bureaucrats?

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/45/articles/brand_america_project.html

 

[Rob]

That is Interesting Stuff. And Yet It Seems to Add Up :/

 

[JTNY]

I know it, you know it, everybody knows.


Where there is conflict, based on specious reasoning and incorrect sentiment, there will be consorship and propaganda, wait, a minute, THAT IS EVERY WAR! I don't know why everyone seems suprised, I say it is a given, and that will never, ever, be subject to change.

 

[rhizome17]

OK, I am posting this here because you can't get any more anti-american than communist, right?

Check out this article http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc980.html and this site http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/. They are links to the Iraqi Communist Party.

Now I think that this is one of the more interesting issues regarding the probable invasion of Iraq. We have all heard about the various opposition groups that have been met and funded by the US and UK governments, right? And our respective mainstream medias have done a good job of playing to the propaganda line, reporting on the meetings of these groups, etc., how they may be organised in a post-Saddam Iraq. Right?

Ok. Now for the interesting bit. What these media goons have neglected to report is the fact that the Iraqi Communist Party is probably the most well organised, and broadly supported, Iraqi opposition group. They draw particular support from the Shia muslims and the Kurds, who together make up 80 % of the Iraqi population. Their website documents a bunch of human rights abuses by Saddams regime, including the massacre of 400-600 resistance fighters 3 years ago. They also oppose a US invasion, preferring a strategy that utilises a range of fronts - read the sites for specifics.

The Iraqi Communist Party also suggests that Saddam should be hauled before an International Human Rights Court, a-la Milosevic, something that I believe the US or UK have yet to suggest (correct me if I am wrong here). Now could this be because they are scared that Saddam might implicate some of the members of the present US administration in such a scenario? I wonder...

Basically, contrary to the propaganda of the mainstream media and the US/ UK administrations, there IS an organised oppoisiton ready to fight in Iraq, but lo-and-behold the US is never going to fund such a movement, because 1. they are communist, 2. the US won't get their grubby hands on the oil, and 3. they are communist.

 

[JTNY]

Originally posted by rhizome17
OK, I am posting this here because you can't get any more anti-american than communist, right?

Check out this article http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc980.html and this site http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/. They are links to the Iraqi Communist Party.

Now I think that this is one of the more interesting issues regarding the probable invasion of Iraq. We have all heard about the various opposition groups that have been met and funded by the US and UK governments, right? And our respective mainstream medias have done a good job of playing to the propaganda line, reporting on the meetings of these groups, etc., how they may be organised in a post-Saddam Iraq. Right?

Ok. Now for the interesting bit. What these media goons have neglected to report is the fact that the Iraqi Communist Party is probably the most well organised, and broadly supported, Iraqi opposition group. They draw particular support from the Shia muslims and the Kurds, who together make up 80 % of the Iraqi population. Their website documents a bunch of human rights abuses by Saddams regime, including the massacre of 400-600 resistance fighters 3 years ago. They also oppose a US invasion, preferring a strategy that utilises a range of fronts - read the sites for specifics.

The Iraqi Communist Party also suggests that Saddam should be hauled before an International Human Rights Court, a-la Milosevic, something that I believe the US or UK have yet to suggest (correct me if I am wrong here). Now could this be because they are scared that Saddam might implicate some of the members of the present US administration in such a scenario? I wonder...

Basically, contrary to the propaganda of the mainstream media and the US/ UK administrations, there IS an organised oppoisiton ready to fight in Iraq, but lo-and-behold the US is never going to fund such a movement, because 1. they are communist, 2. the US won't get their grubby hands on the oil, and 3. they are communist.

A socialist revolution in Iraq, when western powers such as the US are looking for economic gain in there own attempt to seize Iraq/ boot out Saddam.

I am more likely to claiming the 100m title at the next olympics.