View Poll Results: Should we have have invaded?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 29.55%
  • No

    29 65.91%
  • I Don't Know

    2 4.55%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 93

Thread: Another Iraq War Poll

  1. #61
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Then you have a very different understanding of propaganda than either I or Merriam-Webster.

    I believes that resolves our difference of opinion.
    I believe you have a misunderstanding of propaganda and have improperly read the definition to mean "any information presented in the support of a cause". What you fail to grasp is that said information must be presented solely for the purpose of supporting a cause and not be an actual reason the person has come to their position.

    While your misunderstanding goes to motive, it's not directly to do with your beliefs about the motives of Bush.

    Your conspiracy theory regarding Bush's motives could be used to claim the information was presented as a shill and thus qualifies as propaganda. This is probably where you got the idea (which you fumbled into an improper definition). You need to understand why it qualifies as propaganda under the conspiracy assumption and only under such.

    Let's review the definition and highlight where you lost your way:

    the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
    You see, it's not ~"information presented that influenced ones position on a cause". It's ~"information presented for the purpose of a specific cause".

    The only way Bush's information about AlQ in post-invasion Iraq was "for the purpose" of war is to presume that it is not an actual reason for his position but merely presented as a shill.

    The difference between "in the purpose of" and "for the purpose of" is subtle but, I believe, within your grasp.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 04-21-13 at 06:06 AM.

  2. #62
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I believe you have a misunderstanding of propaganda and have improperly read the definition to mean "any information presented in the support of a cause". What you fail to grasp is that said information must be presented solely for the purpose of supporting a cause and not be an actual reason the person has come to their position.
    So you're saying the presenter can't believe in what he's saying in order for it to be propaganda? That doesn't compute. You're trying to say it may not be an overt lie but has to be at least a covert lie. Nothing in the definition implies any kind of deception, overt or covert.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #63
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    So you're saying the presenter can't believe in what he's saying in order for it to be propaganda? That doesn't compute. You're trying to say it may not be an overt lie but has to be at least a covert lie.
    Please see the extensive editing above in the purpose of explaining this to you. Note: not "for the purpose of", it's actually relevant.


    Nothing in the definition implies any kind of deception, overt or covert
    False. Presenting information "for the purpose of a cause" would be to claim that he presented the information for the purpose of war. That's not true. He presented the information because it was relevant in coming to his position on the war, and not because he wanted more war.

    To call it propaganda, you must presume the purpose of the information was to wage or escalate war. That was not, in fact, the purpose of the information. The purpose was, in fact, to explain his position and provide relevant information to the public.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 04-21-13 at 06:15 AM.

  4. #64
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I believe you have a misunderstanding of propaganda and have improperly read the definition to mean "any information presented in the support of a cause".
    Sorry, it's late. That should read "any information presented that supports a cause". Meaning that just because information supports a cause does not mean it was presented for the purpose of supporting that cause.

    Once again:

    If the information is presented for the purpose of war, it's propaganda.
    If the information is presented for the purpose of information, and it supports war, it's not.

    Thus, it can only be propaganda if we presume that Bush presented it for the purpose of war.

    Now, if you believe that Bush had predetermined to wage or escalate war, and simply used that information for the purpose of such, then you can rightfully call it propaganda according to your perspective.

    If I believe that the information was presented because it was important, and it just happened to support the war, then I can rightfully declare it is not propaganda according to my perspective.

    The same is true for the example of protestors.

    It comes down to WHY he (or they) presented the information (motive).
    Last edited by ecofarm; 04-21-13 at 06:36 AM.

  5. #65
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Please see the extensive editing above in the purpose of explaining this to you. Note: not "for the purpose of", it's actually relevant.

    False. Presenting information "for the purpose of a cause" would be to claim that he presented the information for the purpose of war. That's not true. He presented the information because it was relevant in coming to his position on the war, and not because he wanted more war.

    To call it propaganda, you must presume the purpose of the information was to wage or escalate war. That was not, in fact, the purpose of the information.
    Then one could always claim it was "just the facts" so we may as well admit there is no such thing as propaganda unless it's later proved to be a lie (overt or covert) that the presenter actually knew to be a lie at the time. So, in effect, you believe propaganda can only exist in hindsight. I'll be sure to remember that about you - and you be sure to remember, too.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #66
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Then one could always claim it was "just the facts" so we may as well admit there is no such thing as propaganda unless it's later proved to be a lie (overt or covert) that the presenter actually knew to be a lie at the time.
    Incorrect. The truth is propaganda if it presented as a shill and is not a legitimate factor in ones position.

    So, in effect, you believe propaganda can only exist in hindsight. I'll be sure to remember that about you - and you be sure to remember, too.
    Incorrect. Propaganda exists whenever someone uses information for the purpose of a predetermined cause. Like bad science, starting with the conclusion and then finding evidence - that's what one is accusing Bush of when they refer to said information as propaganda.



    For the love of god, tell me you understand. I've worked way too hard for this to elude you. I'll give you credit, I was not considering this angle when we began (I was presuming you were claiming lies) and you helped me to see it.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 04-21-13 at 06:50 AM.

  7. #67
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Then one could always claim it was "just the facts" so we may as well admit there is no such thing as propaganda unless it's later proved to be a lie (overt or covert) that the presenter actually knew to be a lie at the time. So, in effect, you believe propaganda can only exist in hindsight. I'll be sure to remember that about you - and you be sure to remember, too.
    Someone presenting the facts as they know them, feeling them to be the truth which are later proved to be inaccurate is not "lying"... they are simply "mistaken".

    You are, under the strict definition, propagandizing by expressing your side against someone/something else...but when used it generally has a the parasitic aspersion of not being entirely truthful attached as well. That connotation does not seem the case with Bush and Iraq... from all I can tell from this distance, GWB genuinely believed in the myriad factors cited to justify the use of military force against Iraq in the Iraq War Resolution voted on and approved by Congress. i would hope and expect that Congress also found the reasons compelling enough to incur a war.

    Propaganda can occur at any point...and can be entirely accurate or not so.

  8. #68
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Someone presenting the facts as they know them, feeling them to be the truth which are later proved to be inaccurate is not "lying"... they are simply "mistaken".

    You are, under the strict definition, propagandizing by expressing your side against someone/something else...but when used it generally has a the parasitic aspersion of not being entirely truthful attached as well. That connotation does not seem the case with Bush and Iraq... from all I can tell from this distance, GWB genuinely believed in the myriad factors cited to justify the use of military force against Iraq in the Iraq War Resolution voted on and approved by Congress. i would hope and expect that Congress also found the reasons compelling enough to incur a war.

    Propaganda can occur at any point...and can be entirely accurate or not so.
    True, but we were discussing post-invasion information and whether that was for the purpose of (continued/escalated) war or merely information that lead to support of the (already existing) war.

    Someone can, as you pointed out (and as I had considered doing so) present falsities and it is not propaganda.

    Propaganda is really a matter of motive.

    Someone can believe that Bush had a conclusion and then used the info for the purpose of his conclusion, and fairly (in their perspective) call it propaganda.
    Someone can believe that Bush did not have a predetermined conclusion and the info lead to support of the war, and fairly (in their perspective) call it legit information dissemination.


    So, why is propaganda mostly associated with falsities? Because (except as noted above), falsities generally indicate that the conclusion was reached before evidence was sought. Thus, basically, propaganda is improper (backwards) science.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 04-21-13 at 07:21 AM.

  9. #69
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,136
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Based on what we know now, I'd say probably not... But if we hadn't done so, we probably would have had to do so eventually anyway.

  10. #70
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Another Iraq War Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Incorrect. The truth is propaganda if it presented as a shill and is not a legitimate factor in ones position.
    Which means the one presenting it does not really believe what he's saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Incorrect. Propaganda exists whenever someone uses information for the purpose of a predetermined cause. Like bad science, starting with the conclusion and then finding evidence - that's what one is accusing Bush of when they refer to said information as propaganda.
    I disagree with that definition because it still implies some kind of deception, which I don't believe is required. Simply the way facts are presented can be propaganda, like the pictures of the war-torn vets. Sure it was true but when you overlay it with emotional appeal it looses it's purity of fact and becomes propaganda. Bush was no different than any other politician. They all do it, every single one. They push the most appealing (or displeasing, as the case may be) side to emphasize their position. That goes beyond just presenting the facts, like scientists do in their reports and publications. It's not technically skewing the data but it's certainly not well-accepted in science like it is in politics.


    Since you've brought up science I'll give you a recent (tonight) example I ran across in the AGW debate. (I'm agnostic in that, BTW.) Someone linked to a site that is anti-AGW. In that link they reported about a NASA data release about a solar storm (CME). The linked article read: "As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:".

    This supposed "admission" (in 2012) was virtually the same data co-published by the scientist in 2002, tens years earlier and before PSI was even formed. (The newer data does strengthen that report.) To me "admitting" to something kind of implies it was being hidden, suppressed, or was otherwise shameful in some way and that wasn't the situation at all. That's what I call propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    For the love of god, tell me you understand. I've worked way too hard for this to elude you. I'll give you credit, I was not considering this angle when we began (I was presuming you were claiming lies) and you helped me to see it.
    I can see what you're saying I just disagree.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-21-13 at 07:58 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •