|
Now I don’t always agree with Safire, but I would hardly label his op-ed pieces as classical pieces of propoganda.
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Is 1) our (Neocons')
|
What makes him a neocon? Do you have some inside scoop on Safire’s political affilitation outside of journalism for the Nytimes? If I reference “our” war in Iraq does that automatically make me a neocon? Or am I simply referencing “our”/the US’s war in Iraq?
| quote: |
2) pre-emptive (preventive) policy working?
|
Not quite sure how that is propagandistic. It literally was a pre-emptive war and one would think that there are greater negative connotations in labeling it as a pre-emptive war (which it was) as opposed to labeling it a preventative war (because it’s conjecture as to whether it did/will prevent anything).
| quote: |
Was the message sent by ousting the Baathists as well as the Taliban worth the cost? Set aside 3) the tens of thousands of lives (how can this number be predicted?)
4) saved (in the immediate term, the war only saved a small number of Iraqis who were waiting for their death sentence, and killed many more Iraqis; in the longer term, there's no way to know if the war's net effect will be on the side of saved lives or on the side of lives lost due to regional strifes and poverty)
|
Actually in the immediate term, the war probably saved a large number of Iraqis who were to be scheduled to be put to death. Unfortunately the majority of them were murderers and criminals who were granted amnesty by Saddam right before the war. With respect to the long term lives saved from the regime, there’s no accurate way to predict an exact number which is why Safire said tens of thousands … he’s not quoting an accurate figure, he’s making an assumption which should be implied by the crude estimate he provides. But in an attempt to guesstimate the number of lives killed by Saddam each year, we can take the total number of lives lost during the regime (an estimated 5,000,000 … a figure derived from internal documents) divide that by the number of years the regime has been in power (approximately 30 years), and we arrive at a figure of 166,666 deaths per year on average. To be fair, we can remove incidents that may not have been Saddam’s “fault” such as the uprising after 91 gulf war. Removing the estimated 300,000 murders and our new figure is 156,000 people per year on average. Granted these are all extremely rough estimates so let’s have +-100,000 deaths margin of error. Taking all this into account, it is no stretch of the imagination to logically guess that by removing Saddam from power potentially saved tens of thousands of civilians per year.
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles...ics/0000374.php
| quote: |
5) each year (for how long?) by ending Saddam's 6) sustained murder of Iraqi Shia and Kurds (most of whom were already outside Saddam's reach in the no-fly zones) |
No fly-zones meant he couldn’t bomb them. That does not mean he could not send the army in to wreak havoc. And while the Kurds had a relatively autonomous region, the Shia were by no means safe. The no fly zones were in place during the Shia uprising after the first gulf war and Saddam managed to kill over 300,000 people just fine without airplanes.
| quote: |
, which is of 7) little concern (how was their concern measured?)
|
Sarcasm my good friend, sarcasm. As Yoepus mentioned, it’s an op-ed piece …
| quote: |
to 8) human rights inactivists (who risked their lifes as human shields in Iraq).
|
Weren’t there only 250 or so human shields? Are we then to idealize the entire anti-war population as passionate protectors of the peace? I more or less agree with Safire on this point to a certain degree. If most of them were indeed NOT inactivists then how many went to Iraq to be “human shields” during the 91 Shia uprising? There is not a damned thing in the world today that has not become politicized.
| quote: |
Consider only 9) self-defense (imperialism): the 10) practical (hypothetical) impact of 11) American action (originally envisioned as Iraqi opposition action) on the spread of 12) dangerous weaponry (nuke technology originating from US-ally Pakistan) in 13) antidemocratic hands(great to know we'll now be nuked only by terrorists who come from democratic countries).
In Libya, Colonel Qaddafi 14) took one look at our army massing for the invasion of Iraq (taking one look at the Iraq War exposed the US army as too thin for simultaneous missions)
|
So they took one look at how weak we were and decided to cooperate?
| quote: |
and 15) decided to get out of the mass-destruction business (irrevocably?).
He 16) has since stopped lying (confirmed by a lie detector?)
|
Well it’s fairly difficult to stay in or get back into the business of WMDs when you agree to unlimited spot inspections and monitoring by the UN whilst giving up your sources for WMD program development much to the embarrasement of their source.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3354211.stm
| quote: |
to 17) gullible U.N. inspectors (gullible U.N. inspectors who ate Saddam's claims about no WMD vs. the non-gullible Bush taking WMD intelligence from INC) and — 18) in return for U.S. investment (whose realization has been confirmed by a time machine?)
|
No time machine, but that’s what they want.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3364757.stm
| quote: |
instead of 19) invasion (which was explicitly forbidden by Rove before the potentially policy-changing US elections) — 20) promises civilized behavior (at the tea table?). The notion that this terror-supporting dictator's epiphany was not 21) the direct result of our military action (bringing US troops on Libya's Iraqi border?), but of decade-long diplomatic pleas for goodness and mercy, is laughable (laughable indeed - remember that this is a satire piece after all =).
|
So why the timing now? Decades of diplomacy have failed until just randomly in 2003 libya just so happened to heed the calls of transparency because they felt like it?
| quote: |
2. In Afghanistan, supposedly intractable warlords in a 22) formerly (still) radical Islamist, female-repressing culture of conflicting tribes and languages 23) have come together (in new tribal conflicts). Under 24) our NATO(of US puppet countries) 25) security umbrella (buffer zone and disposable foreign foot soldiers) and 26) with some U.N. guidance (the few U.N. help workers who want to get out), a 27) grand conclave of leaders (a small subset of leaders) 28) freed (enthroned) 29) by U.S. power (Northern Alliance and tribal troops) 30) surprised (bored to death) the Arab world's 31) doubting despots(who knew all the time that US would stack up the meeting) with the elements of a constitution 32) that leads the way out of the past generation's abyss of barbarism (into the next generation's many-fold number of tribal strifes).
|
Now who’s using a time machine? 
| quote: |
3. In Syria, a hiding place for Saddam's finances, 33) henchmen (the ones whom US killed or captured in Iraq when they were not granted asylum in Syria) and 34) weaponry (Saddam's WMD moved to Syria?) — and exporter of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism — Dictator Bashar al-Assad is nervously 35) seeking to re-open negotiations with Israel (acting the part of negotiator upon US orders) to regain strategic heights his father lost in the last 36) Syrian aggression (in the permanent conflict between Syria and Israel). Secret talks have already begun (I suspect through Turkey, 37) Israel's Muslim friend (Israel's temporary strategical ally), rather than 38) the unfriendly European Union (the anti-semitic evil EU?)); this would not have happened 39) while Saddam was able to choke off illicit oil shipments to Syria (while US remained neutral in the dispute).
|
And it seems that you’ve taken the neo-con anti-semitic dismissal, turned it around 180 degrees, and are accusing everyone of utilizing that dismissal. Safire never accused the EU of being anti-Semitic. He said they are unfriendly to Israel due to their larger ties to Arabs which is factually correct. Again, the question still stands, why does Syria pick now as a time to enter negotiations with Israel? And why is this necessarily at the “orders” of the US. Israel has long placed the Golan heights on the bargaining table with Syria in return for recognition (as they did with the Sinai and Egypt). I don’t see how this has been independent Israeli policy for the past 20 years and then in 2003 the policy becomes one adopted at “US orders”.
| quote: |
4. On the West Bank, incipient Israeli negotiations with Syria — on top of the overthrow of the despot who rewarded Palestinian suicide bombers — further 40) isolates the terror organizations (from the surrounding one billion Muslims?) 41) behind Yasir Arafat (who's in complete control of terror organizations?). 42) Under the pressure of Israel's security fence (which emits secret rays to break their will?), and 43) without the active support of Egypt and Saudi Arabia (where all support for Palestinian terrorists is gone?) 44) each eager to retain protection (against whom?) of a 45) strong-willed Bush administration (which is cutting short its Iraq plans), Palestinians now have incentives to find 46) an antiterrorist leader (one who doesn't detest Israel) who can 47) deliver statehood (which can't be delivered by even hundreds of leaders because it would cause bloody riots on both sides).
|
Yes it isolates them. Not the Palestinians mind you, but the terrorist organizations. Of course there will always be private support for the organizations but abandonment of official endorsement by all surrounding governments limits their capability and standing in the court of world opinion.
| quote: |
5. In Iran, the presence of 130,000 U.S. troops near the border was not lost on the 48) despot-clerics in power (reformers in power)
|
The reformers are not in “power”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3391969.stm
| quote: |
, who suddenly 49) seemed reasonable (acted like conceding) to 50) European (top EU) 51) diplomats (manipulators) seeking guarantees (capitulation) that 53) Russian-built (purchased) nuclear plants would be inspected.
|
I don’t understand this train of logic … seeking guarantees of nuclear plant inspections is equivalent to seeking capitulation of the leadership?
| quote: |
Colin Powell has been 54) secretly dickering (openly negotiating unlike the Neocon Iran-Contras) with the 55) so-called reform (reformist but Anti-Bush) ayatollah for a year in hopes of being on the right side of a future revolution. The old "Great Satan" crowd has just barred four-score reformist Parliament members from seeking re-election. That 56) panicky (carefully calculated) crackdown in Teheran is a sign of the rulers' 57) weakness (vitality); the example of 58) freedom in neighboring Iraq (street security in shambles) 59) will help cause (deterministically?) 60) another part of the axis (Iraq's long-time friend?) to fall.
|
If that’s a sign of their vitality and strength then why are they rethinking their barrings in the face of mass resignations?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3397253.stm
| quote: |
6. In Iraq, where casualties in Baghdad 60) could be compared to civilian losses(like apples vs oranges, as the implications of military resistance are not the same as those of street crime) to everyday violence in New York and Los Angeles, a 61) rudimentary federal republic is forming itself (Kurds really pushing for independence) with all the customary growing pains. 62) After (If) 63) the new Iraq (INC-controlled Iraq) 64) walks by itself (without more than the permanent 50,000 US troops), we can expect 65) free (US-patrolled) Iraqis to throw their crutches at 66) the doctor (shock therapist). But we did not depose Saddam to impose 67) a puppet (Chalabi); 68) we (Pentagon Spec-Ops together with Mukhabarat) are helping Iraqis defeat 69) the diehards (sectarians and tribesmen whom even Saddam couldn't pacify) and 70) resist fragmentation (resist starting a civil war) to set in place a 71) powerful (militarily neutralized) 72) democratic (Islamist behind the scenes) example. |
More or less agree
| quote: |
7. In North Korea, a half-world away from that example, an unofficial U.S. group was shown nuclear fuel facilities at Yongbyon to demonstrate that 73) the world (US)
|
Well the world if proliferation occurs.
| quote: |
faced 74) a real threat (a real deterrent).
|
It might have been a deterrent if they held on to them. They’ve pretty openly expressed their desire to sell them, so it does constitute a threat.
| quote: |
But the 75) U.S. has given China to understand (bullied China) that 76) nuclear-armed Pyongyang would lead to missile defenses in Japan and Taiwan (except China would throw a tantrum to easily prevent them)
|
Taiwan yes, it’s happening to Japan though whether China says no or not. They’ve signed up for the SM-3 missile system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/as...fic/3333117.stm
| quote: |
, a potential challenge to 77) China's Asian hegemony (China's potential to compete against Japan and India). 78) Our new credibility (tipping the US hand for everyone to see) is leading China to broker (to stall) an 80) enforceable (requiring thousands of WMD inspectors on North Korean soil?) agreement 81) like the kind Libya has offered (identical to Qaddafi's publicity stunt), with economic sweeteners tightly tied to verification.
|
Don’t quite understand why you would need a thousand inspectors or why Libya’s agreement is a publicity stunt or why an agreement described above would not be a good thing.
| quote: |
The columnist Jim Hoagland cautions that it is too early to proclaim that nonproliferation is "spinning into control." But taken together, this phased array of fallout to 82) our (Neocons') 83) decision to lead (unauthorized decision to dictate) 84) the world's (US bloc's) war against terror makes the case that what we have been doing is 85) strategically sound (unless Kurdish and Shiite plotting erupts into a regional conflict) as well as 86) morally right (as proven by mounting evidence about Saddam's WMD and the war's total casualties).
|
Again with the time machine … how is that any different than safire?
| quote: |
This analysis shows that even a shortish article may have 86 instances of abused terminology. Every one of these instances would be dismissed in a scholarly discussion, but newspaper reporters consider them as fair game to brain-wash their readers. W. Satire and J. Hoaxland indeed seem to have the art of spinning in their control |
Once again, like Yoepus said, it’s an op-ed piece . And excuse me if I tend to disagree with your 86 instances of abused terminology. One could quite easily go through your arguments and make a similar case …
|
. At any rate, although I don't disagree that there is a certain amount of, as you call it, "code" speak that the neocons use to propel their agenda, I would disagree with your assessments of Safire using this approach. I think he's just a regular conservative examining the possible benefits of the neocon agenda with respect to current world developments.
