Public image clusterfuck

[Joe]

I think the whole "with us or against us" business was directed at countries that have traditionally been hostile to the U.S., not allies. That didn't stop our allies from being offended by it, of course, and that doesn't make it any less of an ill-conceived ultimatum.

[Rubberanvil]

If we had finished the job in Iraq twelve years ago, that would have just unleashed the international shitstorm we're seeing now then.

It is debatable just how big a shitstorm it will be, through the US would have a much better hand in dealing with it.

[Crown]

I acknowledged that Bush blundered, didn't I? You're just spoling for an argument.

Crown, the man was doomed from the get-go. He couldn't have won this time around even if he'd played a good hand.

No you did not, you said that Bush was doomed from the get-go, and then proceeded to introduce every extr-tenuous evidence of how 'outside' influences were forcing his hand. The closest you caim to actually pointing out a flaw in the way the administration actually screwed up it's own case is by pointing out that he should have gone further to alienate foreign governments. That doesn't address the issue of how the Administration 'clusterfucked' its own PR campaign. Namely the erroneous evidence brought forward to the SC.

[weemadando]

It goes without saying that this situation looks bad, because outside the US, the American news networks are starting to look like a kangaroo outfit.

As an Australian I am offended that you would slander kangaroo's so much as to compare them to American news networks...

[weemadando]

Rumsfelds speeches have a lot to answer for as well.

Syria and Iran, stay out of the war - or else.

France, Germany, Russia, you're staying out of the war, we're pissed at you now!

Wake up and smell the ros- hypocrisy.

[Nathan F]

Colin Powell should have pointed out the sheer stupidty of it. He's the Secretary of State and god damn it he should have set George down and explained it to him. I think it's as much his fault that we never made a clear cut, consistent arguement as to why we needed to go into Iraq.

Colon Bowel should have shut his fucking mouth.

That fucking assclown is why we're going back into Iraq 12 years later.

See, 12 years ago, as the US Army was on the edge of routing the
Iraqi army all the way to Baghdad, and US forces were on the banks
of the Euprhates river, Colon Bowel told George HW Bush that we
didn't have to advance any further, because we had "achieved our
objectives".

So it's because of that fucking idiot that we're having to go back in
12 years later to finish the job we should have finished in 1991.

That is the reason we should have let Swarzkopf (sp?) run the war instead of Powell. Powell is a politician, Swarzkopf is a soldier. Any time a war has been run from a political standpoint, it hasn't gotten all the objectives that need to be done, done.

[Nathan F]

Rumsfelds speeches have a lot to answer for as well.

Syria and Iran, stay out of the war - or else.

France, Germany, Russia, you're staying out of the war, we're pissed at you now!

Wake up and smell the ros- hypocrisy.

Let's see.

We want Syria and Iran to stay out because they would be helping the OTHER SIDE.

Yet we want France, Germany, and Russia in on OUR side.

Not hypocrisy, that is common sense.

[Durandal]

As Durandal mentioned, we were fucked when after September 11th Bush made the "with or against us" speech. It's truth, but that didn't mean it had to be said.

How is it "truth"? Since when is it every other nation's problem that terrorists target us?

[Stormbringer]

As Durandal mentioned, we were fucked when after September 11th Bush made the "with or against us" speech. It's truth, but that didn't mean it had to be said.

How is it "truth"? Since when is it every other nation's problem that terrorists target us?

I think it would have been more accurate and wiser for Bush to simply tell the world that any nation harboring terrorist would be agains tthe US and our allies. Less drastic and a lot less offensive.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That is the reason we should have let Swarzkopf (sp?) run the war instead of Powell. Powell is a politician, Swarzkopf is a soldier. Any time a war has been run from a political standpoint, it hasn't gotten all the objectives that need to be done, done.

Other side to every coin: I'm glad General Douglas MacArthur didn't get his way in Korea, nuking shit and dumping waste into rivers.

[Edi]

As for the failure internationally, I think that some of it is overblown. We have support from a number of East European countries, as well as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Great Britain. However, much of the resistance from Europe comes from Politics in the EU, a rising muslim population that is changing the face of Europe, and a more extreme left wing that looks to it for support is partially responsible for the French and German opposition to the US.

It's hardly overblown. You only have the support of Spain and Britain because their governments are flat out ignoring what their population is saying. The Spanish government will be looking very different after their next election, and if Aznar were intending to run for office instead of quitting politics, he'd not support you. Blair has half his party up in arms against him and the reason he is not facing domestic parliamentary crisis is that his opposition is supporting him and giving him the votes he needs in parliament. Berlusconi's government is facing domestic political trouble for supporting the war. That's the support of three of your biggest allies on a pretty shaky foundation right there.

The PR disaster was caused by exactly what Mike said, namely Bush belligerence and determination to offend every single one of his allies by first demanding support in threatening tones and then ignoring it when he got what he asked for! That was the War on Terror issue after 9/11, and it certainly (and quite rightly) pissed a whole lot of people off. Not to mention that he had already several times told the rest of the world to go screw itself over quite a few international treaties (Kyoto, ABM, ICC, jsut for starters). Then this latest issue. Overblown? Understated is more like it. It's no wonder nobody likes the current US administration, they've done everything in their power to make themselves unpopular internationally.

Half the country, still smarting over Al Gore’s electoral defeat and looking to “stick it” to a President they blame for a post-9/11 recession immediately cried, “Foul!’ and identified the war in Iraq as a means by which to deflect legitimate attention from domestic policy.

The rest of the world, already wary over the War on Terror – an agenda pressed on them by the U.S. in the first place – was utterly startled, wondrous at the idea that George Bush now planned a peacekeeping mission halfway around the world in a country with which they had concerned themselves very little since 1991. Some – those in France and German – saw a means to “test the waters,” see what “stuff” this new White House and its President were made of, and begin to play shell games on the Security Council, hopeful that they could in the process coalesce a European Union ostensibly more in line with their own policies. It seemed a sure bet.

And here endeth our broadcast from Fantasy Land. That there was such a load of stupid crap it almost doesn't merit a response, but I'll give you one anyway:

First off, it seems more like the Bush Administration trying to divert public attention from legitimate domestic concerns with the Iraq War than his opposition. How you manage these logical contortions, I'll never know, but then again, I'm not surprised, you've been throwing them since your first post.

For the rest of the world, instead of "around the world in a country with which they had concerned themselves very little since 1991" it was more a reaction of being horrified at the prospect of the US starting a war of aggression against a sovereign nation on a pretext that had no evidence whatsoever backing it up. When Patrick Degan sees the shit you posted, I'm sure he will take great delight in ripping it to tiny shreds and utterly crushing your delusional arguments. France and Germany were not interested in "testing what stuff the new White House was made of", they were interested in not seeing a war erupt with spurious justification. Both countries have been systematically against a war, which is not much of a surprise given the attitudes of their populations. The way the US has behaved toward them hasn't helped either.

As for why Europe should fund your war, no reason whatsoever. And if Iraq is to be an American protectorate (instead of controlled by the UN) after the war where American economic interests come first (as envisioned by the Bush administration and demonstrated by the way the Pentagon is already porking out rebuilding contracts to American companies while ignoring everyone else) I don't see why Europe should pitch in one single cent, yet it's being done anyway. Not to mention the fact that most of the rebuilding will be done with Iraqi oil money.

You're just fucking delusional. Stone deaf, with a cast-iron skull, as I've said before already.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's simple, Mike. Crude propaganda really works on a majority of the population of any country. So the crude propaganda techniques of Iraq are succeeding while we're failing, simply because we're not engaging in that sort of thing. You know how many stupid people there are out there; those sorts of people are going to get taken in by that sort of thing, time after time.

[Kuja]

That is the reason we should have let Swarzkopf (sp?) run the war instead of Powell. Powell is a politician, Swarzkopf is a soldier.

Schwartzkopf, IIRC.

And I agree.

[Edi]

It's simple, Mike. Crude propaganda really works on a majority of the population of any country. So the crude propaganda techniques of Iraq are succeeding while we're failing, simply because we're not engaging in that sort of thing. You know how many stupid people there are out there; those sorts of people are going to get taken in by that sort of thing, time after time.

It's not like the people of Europe like Saddam, we don't, but you can lay blame for his popularity relative to Bush on the hamfisted American efforts that were so transparent that they fooled nobody. Sure, there are idiots who just can't see, or worse, won't see even though they could, but you're looking for a way to absolve the Bush administration from responsibility for its mistakes. America tried an extremely crude propaganda approach, and while it might have largely worked domestically, it didn't work abroad, and that is your problem.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

America tried an extremely crude propaganda approach, and while it might have largely worked domestically, it didn't work abroad, and that is your problem.

Edi

Our propaganda was nonexistant. Look at Iraq for Propaganda. We just have to accept the downside of not using propaganda - That gullible people will then be taken in by the argument of the enemy who does.

[Edi]

Or so crude as to be internationally non-existent. *shrug* Whichever. The difference is really semantic hair-splitting as the outcome is the same anyway.

Edi

[AdmiralKanos]

Our propaganda was nonexistant. Look at Iraq for Propaganda. We just have to accept the downside of not using propaganda - That gullible people will then be taken in by the argument of the enemy who does.

That's a funny statement. Maybe you figure you can fool Edi, but I get American TV channels, and you can't pull the wool over my eyes. Your stations were saturated with propaganda. The problem was that it was almost entirely geared toward American domestic sensibilities, and completely ignored the rest of the world. In short, you sold your own population very effectively on the war.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's a funny statement. Maybe you figure you can fool Edi, but I get American TV channels, and you can't pull the wool over my eyes. Your stations were saturated with propaganda. The problem was that it was almost entirely geared toward American domestic sensibilities, and completely ignored the rest of the world. In short, you sold your own population very effectively on the war.

Okay, well, what is propaganda? How does one differentiate it from expressed patriotism? Propaganda is a state effort at controlling the opinion of the populace or a foreign populace; the USA hasn't engaged in this so far (though briefly considered dabbling in it early on).

[Lord of the Farce]

Okay, well, what is propaganda? How does one differentiate it from expressed patriotism? Propaganda is a state effort at controlling the opinion of the populace or a foreign populace; the USA hasn't engaged in this so far (though briefly considered dabbling in it early on).

Dictionary definition: organised propagation of a doctorine, religion, cause, etc., by use of publicity, selected information, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, well, what is propaganda? How does one differentiate it from expressed patriotism? Propaganda is a state effort at controlling the opinion of the populace or a foreign populace; the USA hasn't engaged in this so far (though briefly considered dabbling in it early on).

You seem to be implying that propaganda must be state-controlled or it doesn't count. See Merriam-Webster:

Propaganda

1. capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

The voluntary self-censorship conducted by American media at the behest of the government, the firing of media personalities with dissenting viewpoints (Mahr, Arnett), the accusations of anti-Americanism, the widespread attempts to equate criticism of the war effort with outright treason (giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"), the widespread use of doublespeak, etc. all fit the definition of propaganda. From outside the country, it just looks hamfisted and transparent, and does not fit America's constitutional self-image of free and open expression of ideas.

[K. A. Pital]

Okay, well, what is propaganda? How does one differentiate it from expressed patriotism?

When one does not let something to be shown objectively, I think. When one fires those who take other opinion of an event than that of the propagandist. Expressed patriotism is the hacker attack on Al-Jazeera website, which showed dead American soldiers.

Propaganda is a state effort at controlling the opinion of the populace or a foreign populace

Oh, not really. Propaganda is a violation of one point of view and strongly introducing this point to some people, without letting any other points in. And the USA did a pretty good job on that. Tons of lies and BS news, all targeted for propaganda. Not speaking about the BS which the state leaders (Bush and Blair) say.

It's propaganda, whether you like the very word or not.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The voluntary self-censorship conducted by American media at the behest of the government, the firing of media personalities with dissenting viewpoints (Mahr, Arnett), the accusations of anti-Americanism, the widespread attempts to equate criticism of the war effort with outright treason (giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"), the widespread use of doublespeak, etc. all fit the definition of propaganda. From outside the country, it just looks hamfisted and transparent, and does not fit America's constitutional self-image of free and open expression of ideas.

Corporations can do whatever they want. Things like the firing of Mahr and Arnett aren't propaganda acts, it's patriotism. Private companies don't have to give equal air time to people with viewpoints like Mahr's or Arnett's if they don't want - And people don't have to watch what those companies produce (with or without people like that). That's the way a capitalist society works. Unless you can prove that the government actually is requesting for any of this to happen, it doesn't compare with classic propaganda acts - Things like the works of Goebbels or the modern day DPRK propaganda posters and radio broadcasts or the Iraqi information ministry - whatsoever.

The reason it seems "hamfisted and transparent" is because, I suppose, Americans like displays of Patriotism which are considered rabid nationalism by other countries, and they also like straight-forward and direct offerings, which might be labelled transparent elsewhere. Really, this has nothing to do other than the media appealling to the audience, which in the USA really does what patriotic coverage of events which deserve patriotic coverage, and looks unkindly (and won't watch), coverage which has an anti-American slant.

[Edi]

The reason it seems "hamfisted and transparent" is because, I suppose, Americans like displays of Patriotism which are considered rabid nationalism by other countries, and they also like straight-forward and direct offerings, which might be labelled transparent elsewhere. Really, this has nothing to do other than the media appealling to the audience, which in the USA really does what patriotic coverage of events which deserve patriotic coverage, and looks unkindly (and won't watch), coverage which has an anti-American slant.

This might even be an argument if the US administration hadn't tried to sell the exact same shit to the international audience too. Most people that I know (of whatever nationality) prefer straightforward and direct talk to being led around in circles, and they also don't accept bullshit excuses (which is all that the 'clear and present threat to America because of WMD' line amounts to). The fact that the American administration straightforwardly and directly lied to the rest of the world and got poorly received isn't my problem. They'd have gotten more credit if they'd not lied and just said 'fuck it, we'll do it anyway'. It still the same every time I see Shrub on TV, he's laying the same shit on so thick it makes me nauseous and wonder if he thinks his audience is just as much of a fucking moron as he is. That so many eat it up is astonishing.

As for the rabid nationalism part, it's quite possible to present things in a patriotic, dignified way that would most likely satisfy the average American without going into the superhyped-up, utterly over-the-top jingoism that the Shrub administration seems to prefer over all other approaches.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

No you did not, you said that Bush was doomed from the get-go, and then proceeded to introduce every extr-tenuous evidence of how 'outside' influences were forcing his hand.

The fact that Bush made costly mistakes in explaining the war doesn’t detract from the fact that he was in a bad position to begin with.

How is it "truth"? Since when is it every other nation's problem that terrorists target us?

You believe that nations who knowingly harbor terrorists yet do nothing to flush them out are still our allies? Technically, we should have watched the international response to September 11th very closely. It did give a fairly decent “heads up” about enemies and friends. That doesn’t mean we needed to call everyone out over the affair. And take a rather belligerent, self-centered approach. It merely soured our reputation among existing allies.

First off, it seems more like the Bush Administration trying to divert public attention from legitimate domestic concerns with the Iraq War than his opposition. How you manage these logical contortions, I'll never know, but then again, I'm not surprised, you've been throwing them since your first post.

Reread my post. We are in agreement.

For the rest of the world, instead of "around the world in a country with which they had concerned themselves very little since 1991" it was more a reaction of being horrified at the prospect of the US starting a war of aggression against a sovereign nation on a pretext that had no evidence whatsoever backing it up. When Patrick Degan sees the shit you posted, I'm sure he will take great delight in ripping it to tiny shreds and utterly crushing your delusional arguments. France and Germany were not interested in "testing what stuff the new White House was made of", they were interested in not seeing a war erupt with spurious justification. Both countries have been systematically against a war, which is not much of a surprise given the attitudes of their populations. The way the US has behaved toward them hasn't helped either.

I don’t buy this “destabilizing of global norms” bullshit. Any half-intelligent observer understands that no other nation could possibly seek to copy the American policies of preemption. There is no chance of war between Pakistan and India or any other pair of feuding nations on basis established here.

France and Germany, Russia and China were attempting to see just how far they could press opposition to Washington. Chirac wouldn’t have let things evolve as they did without having had at least some inkling of hope that America might turn back or seek a new compromise. And before you go off blaming American ignorance for Franco-German opposition, I remind you that each has their own vested interests at stake. Schroeder opposed war primarily because it was guaranteed to earn him votes in parliament; the French because they had large-scale investments in Hussein’s Iraq and the desire to put the E.U. up against the U.S.

As for why Europe should fund your war, no reason whatsoever. And if Iraq is to be an American protectorate (instead of controlled by the UN) after the war where American economic interests come first (as envisioned by the Bush administration and demonstrated by the way the Pentagon is already porking out rebuilding contracts to American companies while ignoring everyone else) I don't see why Europe should pitch in one single cent, yet it's being done anyway. Not to mention the fact that most of the rebuilding will be done with Iraqi oil money.

Part of the reason behind Europe’s vehement opposition to war was the expectation that they’d be sequestered for funds if they joined the march on Baghdad, a prospect that appealed to no-one outside the White House.

Actually, Bush has made it very clear that reconstruction by an affair handled by the United Nations. Aside from a temporary military government during the weeks immediately post-war, we plan to welcome aid from all corners. There will of course be a limited degree of preliminary porking but I assure you that we are planning a multilateral post-war effort.

Iraqi oil money? It’s going to finance much of the war itself, not necessarily reconstruction. We’re hoping that European bids on rebuilding contracts will help restructure the country itself.

[Ignorant twit]

I see two large components: Bush being blunt and domestic politics.

First off Bush is hideously blunt. He's father says "this will not stand". He says "We will remove Saddam." Unlike the majority of politicians he is forthright about his intentions. While every president has likely beleived that Europe is largely useless militarily, Bush actually comes and says it. Where Clinton knew hell would freeze over before Kyoto would be ratified, Bush simply said he was pulling out. The nations of the world like to pretend that they are needed and vital to the greater picture, blatantly saying we don't need you has never won any friends.

In fairness to Bush he is presented with bad domestic political landscape abroad. Schroeder has just come off a VERY narrow election and doesn't have the political capital to buck the populace. Likewise Chirac didn't have particular legitimacy running against the French equivalent of Pat Buchannon. Bush has to deal with German leadership that MUST be hostile to war (otherwise risk losing their coalition), and a French leadership trying to placate the right (who another De Gualle) and the left (anti-war). Even if he had done a good diplomatic job he faces a far harder sell to his opponents due to domestic electoral concerns.