Another Iraq War Poll

ecofarm said:

Actually, you don't, you're just not fully grasping our agreement. If you really saw it, you'd agree - because you do. There's nothing I've presented that contradicts your definition or presentation. You just don't understand the meta behind it.

It's only propaganda if the person's intent is to deceive or sway opinion as opposed to disseminating information.

Click to expand...

And precisely how can you tell?

MoSurveyor said:

And precisely how can you tell?

Click to expand...

Well, if the info is obvious BS, then it was probably just invented for the purpose. Otherwise, it's up to each of us to discern motive/intent. Do you think propaganda comes with a warning label?

ecofarm said:

Why make the intel known before the public really needed to know (decision time)? Our intel agencies only sat on it for like a year; they probably wanted to keep it secret longer but it was decision time.

Click to expand...

One could continually keep up that excuse and have no information ever be propaganda.

ecofarm said:

Well, if the info is obvious BS, then it was probably just invented for the purpose. Otherwise, it's up to each of us to discern motive/intent. Do you think propaganda comes with a warning label?

Click to expand...

But now you're back to inventions (lies!), not the truth.

Yes, it is - and, no I don't.

MoSurveyor said:

One could continually keep up that excuse and have no information ever be propaganda.

Click to expand...

False. Any information disseminated for the purpose of a preconceived conclusion is propaganda.

MoSurveyor said:

But now you're back to inventions (lies!), not the truth.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't say lies necessarily. As I noted before, we usually talk about propaganda in the form of obvious falsities that illustrate a conclusion being reached before evidence.

When we do not have the luxury of such a tell (which is not always a lie and propaganda, but sometimes honest error), we must discern motive and intent. No one is gonna tell you that they are feeding you propaganda and there is no warning label that comes with it - you must figure it out.

ecofarm said:

False. Any information disseminated for the purpose of a preconceived conclusion is propaganda.

Click to expand...

Once again, how exactly do you determine that?

ecofarm said:

Well, I wouldn't say lies necessarily. As I noted before, we usually talk about propaganda in the form of obvious falsities that illustrate a conclusion being reached before evidence.

When we do not have the luxury of such a tell (which is not always a lie and propaganda, but sometimes honest error), we must discern motive and intent. No one is gonna tell you that they are feeding you propaganda and there is no warning label that comes with it - you must figure it out.

Click to expand...

So propaganda becomes a matter of personal feeling. If you like what's being said, it isn't, and if you don't, it is. :shrug:

MoSurveyor said:

Once again, how exactly do you determine that?

Click to expand...

By examining the evidence and determining:

1. Is it legit. If not, was deception intentional.
2. Does it lead to the conclusion presented. If not, why is it being used as such.

MoSurveyor said:

So propaganda becomes a matter of personal feeling. If you like what's being said, it isn't, and if you don't, it is. :shrug:

Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of motive. That can be determined conclusively sometimes and not so much others. I'm sorry I cannot give you absolutism, the world just isn't like that.

ecofarm said:

By examining the evidence and determining:

1. Is it legit. If not, was deception intentional.
2. Does it lead to the conclusion presented. If not, why is it being used as such.

Click to expand...

1. I can certainly agree with this and have not actually assumed intentional falsehood at any time. Making up lies or fraud is very obviously propaganda.
2. Again, this kind of propaganda is pretty easily shown, and I also wasn't assuming this.

Propaganda, usually does lead to the conclusion being presented and is usually not a deliberate falsehood. Advertising laws have made both of those approaches illegal for products and PR men have gotten very good at propaganda which avoids both of those pitfalls. It's half-truths, almost miraculous timing, and the use of certain connotations (& sometimes cultural meanings) that make modern PR so persuasive. That doesn't mean it's not propaganda. I see virtually every commercial (with some obvious exceptions) as propaganda in some form or other - don't you?

ecofarm said:

No, it's a matter of motive. That can be determined conclusively sometimes and not so much others. I'm sorry I cannot give you absolutism, the world just isn't like that.

Click to expand...

Motive and intent are extremely difficult to determine and even then it will be colored by your own beliefs.

MoSurveyor said:

Motive and intent are extremely difficult to determine and even then it will be colored by your own beliefs.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but there's not much absolute certainty when discussing truthful propaganda. It's a tough world and not everything is a math equation.

ecofarm said:

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.

Click to expand...

While not wholly in agreement/disagreement on the general indicators pointing to a conclusion reached prior to seeking evidence, my estimation of the more general population's take regarding propaganda is that propagandist often knows, has already investigated, discovered the position perceived in his best interest and is busy promoting that position.

Make sense?

Gaugingcatenate said:

While not wholly in agreement/disagreement on the general indicators pointing to a conclusion reached prior to seeking evidence, my estimation of the more general population's take regarding propaganda is that propagandist often knows, has already investigated, discovered the position perceived in his best interest and is busy promoting that position.

Make sense?

Click to expand...

Yes, motive. Specifically, having ones conclusion (cause) already established and then using information not for the purpose of informing or explaining but for the purpose of the (predetermined) cause.

ecofarm said:

Yes, motive. Specifically, having ones conclusion (cause) already established and then using information not for the purpose of informing or explaining but for the purpose of the (predetermined) cause.

Click to expand...

Very well could be, but in the strict interpretation of the word, propaganda, could be just informing and explaining as well as the predetermined cause which one may feel to be fully truthful and honorable... but is usually, with the general use of the word, considered less than honest about the topic.

I mean if splitting hairs.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Very well could be, but in the strict interpretation of the word, propaganda, could be just informing and explaining as well as the predetermined cause which one may feel to be fully truthful and honorable...

Click to expand...

No. If the purpose is to inform and explain, then it is not "FOR the purpose of" the (necessarily predetermined) cause.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Very well could be, but in the strict interpretation of the word, propaganda, could be just informing and explaining as well as the predetermined cause which one may feel to be fully truthful and honorable...

Click to expand...

In other words, no, because the honest dissemination of information (even if faulty or incorrect) and propaganda are mutually exclusive.

but is usually, with the general use of the word, considered less than honest about the topic.

I mean if splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

Only because dishonesty belays cause before evidence. Being wrong, not so much.

obvious Child said:

Well, the NIE whitepaper did move from the standard of probable to possible. That does explain quite a bit.

Plus, our primary sources, 1 of which was flagged as a "drunken liar" by foreign intel and the other who had ulterior motives (aka, I want to lead the new country) both provided to be liars.

Click to expand...

I am sure Newfie intelligence would have seen through the bull****. It's obvious as child ( ) that there were people in high positions pushing for the invasion.

I voted "I don't know" but strongly leaning no.

Instead of kill the bad guys, which created more bad guys and intensified the bad in the already bad guys, I wish the Bush Administration policy had been to take the same amount of resources spent in Iraq and pour it into a Kennedyesk Man on the Moon commitment to make automotive transportation that does not require oil more viable than oil. A huge energy independence initiative with:

- Better battery R&D grants to research universities
- Hydrogen energy R&D
- The promise of generous financial awards to the inventors who create batteries that meet certain benchmarks in costs to produce, energy storage capacity and mid-size and large vehicle range capacity
- Many more nuclear and coal power plants to stave off any concern that electric cars will lead to rolling blackouts and brownouts
- Invite select cities and towns to participate in a national home electrical production test market group. It must have been agreed upon by local ballot initiatives and would determine the viability of local code requirements to have new construction and re-roofing permits include solar electric roofing to supplement their need for the power grid. The theory is the costs of the systems would be cancelled out by the reduction in electrical bills and might even generate homeowner net profits. Meanwhile, due to the sudden demand for solar electric roofing, market forces would kick in and reduce costs while leading to the development of better technological innovation. Probably most doable in sunnier sections of the country; the South East, the desert South West, etc.
-Tax incentivize employers allowing more telecommuting in vocations where its feasible even if on rotating schedules where employees are allowed to work from home every other day. Computer networking, webcam/headset connectivity, telephone networking, remote keystroke monitoring and evaluating people based on project completion, quality and quantity of work instead of much of the current corporate culture that often evaluates staff based on being able to see how busy they look and how worn out they look at the end of the day. This would make any argument against telecommuting where feasible moot in most cases.

...or kill our way out of the mess in the Middle East at a tremendous cost in blood and treasure while some insist American ingenuity is not anything we can count on to improve the quality of life for our citizens and people around the world.

As far as the costs of these initiatives to taxpayers being too expensive, if I understand it if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq and instead used that cost for energy independence the initiative would have had a budget of over $800,000,000,000.00, lower costs in taking care of our disabled vets, fewer graves and Arlington National Cemetery and other military cemeteries around the country and lower costs in taking care of the families they've left behind.

In fairness, I think some of that $800,000,000,000.00 should have done toward making Iraqi and Middle Eastern intelligence gathering a major national security priority including keeping dedicated spy satellites pointed to key areas and monitored 24/7 with an emergency strike force in the vicinity at all times. But still, probably a drop in the bucket compared to the whole $800,000,000,000.00 we spent.