- Capitalism and Alternatives -

War & Propaganda - Major exports

Posted by: bill on April 20, 1999 at 11:53:54:

In Reply to: More War posted by Samuel Day Fassbinder on April 19, 1999 at 13:28:06:

Let's be clear about this -- war propaganda is standard stuff. After all, one of the main reasons nations go to war is to achieve national solidarity within a nation. Neither the Serb media nor the US media can afford to look unpatriotic. If you don't expect war propaganda to accompany wars, you're either too young or you're not paying attention.


I assure you I am not too young. The entire thrust of my post was the consideration of the destructive aspects of propaganda - not whether it is something to be expected in times of war. The insidious use of what are essentially lies, as I tried but apparently failed to make clear, is an assault on those traits that make us human - including the power to reason.

Therefor I think it particularly important to expose such propaganda wherever possible. One good site is http://www.fair.org/activism/peaceful-solution.html.

Another source from a Serbian perspective can be found at http://www.srpska mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Repo1.html. "...another American PR
firm, Ruder Finn, working for the Croatian and Bosnian separatists, publicly bragged that it had been able to turn world opinion against the Serbs ."


I have withheld judgment about this conflict because it's still possible for the US/NATO to do something good; so far, however, they've made a big mess of a big mess, and added a bit to the death toll in the process.

Bill: And What in the world might that be? Do you have precedent examples? Isn't it obvious by now that the intention is to produce another Iraq (which we continue to bomb at this present moment)? There were, and are, solutions to the present crises that are NOT military ones. In fact it is difficult for me to come up with examples where the "military option", (initiated by the State) has produced anything but a lot of grief and destruction.

Again - from A Bold Polite Prole:

"Yes, yes, yes, we know it had to respond. We could have responded by
backing off on the demand that NATO troops go into Kosovo. If we had,
there would still be 1600 UN observers in the province, along with
cameras, and the ability to file news reports of ethnic strife. We
could have responded by assuring Yugoslavia that the KLA would be
trated as the narco-terrorist organization that it is, seizing its bank
accounts throughout Europe. We could have responded by lifting trade
embargoes with Yugoslavia, thereby decreasing economic hardship as a
basis for ethnic strife. We could have responded by aiding Ibrahim
Rugova's Albanian peace movement. We could have responded by aiding
the 350,000 Serbian refugees from Krajina. We could have responded by
aiding Serb moderates who opposed Milosevic. We could have responded
by bringing Yugoslavia into the Western sphere of economic influence.
We could have responded by aiding the myriad NGO's that were trying to
spread peace and understanding through non-violent actions such as
distributing food, clothing, and other basic necessities to whomever,
regardless of ethnic background. We could have responded by assuring
all sides that we did not choose sides in this conflict, and then
acting on this. But we responded by bombing the nation's
infrastructure to rubble. Nato clumsy? Error-prone? How quaint.
Those are not the words that come to my mind."

I think that about sums it up.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup