Every denial of war is met with conformation of its plan

notanothermonday

Padawan Learner
"Any U.S. strike might not destroy Iran nuclear sites"

This headline appeared today on reuters web site. Why does our government and military continue to explore the idea of U.S. strikes against Iran and what impact they may have, when they have so often denied that this option is even on the table?

To steal a melody from CSN's Military Madness

Political spin is killing our country
A feeling of sin comes over me.
 
<<when they have so often denied that this option is even on the table?>>

Not true according to Dick Cheney, who said all options are on the table, following the passing of the arbitrary deadline set for Iran (by a bunch of arbitrary non-Iranians) to suspend its nuclear program. Fox News is giddily trumpeting the "all options" news every few minutes, even though Cheney has actually been saying this all along. Cheney waxed vaguely: "I think it would be a big mistake for a country like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons."

Remember that the last arbitrary deadline set for Iranian suspension of nuclear activity was August 31, 2006.
hXXp://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2256668

This Seymour Hersh piece from November, 2006 conveys Cheney's belief that Democrats Won't Stop Iran Attack:
hXXp://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_cheney_dems_wont_stop_iran_attack.htm
If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.
 
So, as Dick and Bush say all options are on the table (something we heard back before the Iraq war) we also hear what is mentioned in the following articles, there are no plans for war. This leaves one to wonder what all options mean. Bush consitently states that he believes diplomatic means of resolution can be achieved (heard this before as well). The point is that in our media we are fed two contrasting stories by the same administration and often times by the same person in that administration. At what point will we have had enough. What am I shocked and awed by? The fact that the same rhetoric can be used again and again. Rhetoric that is so unspecific that a pointed question cannot be asked.

In the future after we have bombed the tar out of Iran one might ask Bush and Co.:
Q: You said there were no war plans for Iran?
A: We have no plans for war, we did have plans for a campaign to hinder Irans ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. This is the plan that you see in action right now.
or
A: We have not declared war on Iran this is a global effort to curtail Iran's efforts to attain weapons of mass destruction that we believe they plan to use on certain parts of the globe.

and there are more and more questions with that can be given answers that are no more wrong than they are right.

So, after all of that I see your point. I did not clearly state what it was that I was getting at. The idea is that bombing campaigns and declaration of war in my eyes are one in the same but not according to Bush and Co.

ABC News: Bush tries to convince world no plans for Iran war
Bush tries to convince world no plans for Iran war.
www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2869580

Defense Secretary Gates says there is no plan to start a war with Iran ... Gates said he was reiterating what President Bush and Secretary of State ...

www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/02/gates.iran/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
 
notanothermonday said:
So, as Dick and Bush say all options are on the table (something we heard back before the Iraq war) we also hear what is mentioned in the following articles, there are no plans for war.
Somehow you seem to forget that there is no reason whatsoever to believe one word of what Bush or Dick or Media are telling us.
 
Not forgotten just not observed within what I was pointing out...
Which seems quite irrelevant when as you point out that what is being said and what the media chooses to spin is nothing more than a lie.
 
This is from Linebarger's "Psychological Warfare" 1954 edition Pages 128-131
which is the "primer" for PSYOPS operations. Linebarger's fear was that this
would be used in peace time which a lot of it unfortunately has.


"Over and above the direct contribution to straight news or intelligence,
enemy propaganda in times of war or crisis affords a clue to enemy strategy.
If the co-ordination is not present the propaganda may do the enemy himself
harm. But the moment co-ordination is present, and one end of the
co-ordinate is handed over to us, we can start figuring what the
co-ordination is for. Sometimes propaganda is sacrificed for weightier
considerations of security; German propaganda gave little advance warning of
a war with the USSR, and Soviet propaganda gave none. In other instances,
the co-ordination does give the show away.
The Manahattan project is one instance of "keeping things under wraps" although they made it known that they were working on a "secret weapon I believe. May have to check this out.

"In 1941-42 the Japanese radio began to show an unwholesome interest in
Christmas Island in its broadcasts to Japanese at home and abroad. Christmas
Island, below Sumatra, was pointed out as a really important place, and
tremendously important to Naval strategy. Subsequently the Japanese armed
forces went to and took Christmas Island. The home public was delighted that
this vital spot had been secured. Of course Christmas Island was not as
important as Japanese radio said it was, but the significant thing was that
radio talked about it AHEAD OF TIME. For what little it was worth the
Japanese had given us warning......"
This section one paragraph later applies to Iran to a "T".

"A nation getting ready to strike a la Pearl Harbour may prepare by alleging
American aggresion. A nation preparing to break the peace frequently gets
out peace propaganda of the most blatant sort, trying to make sure that its
own audience (as well as the world) will believe the real responsibility to
lie in the victim he attacks. Hitler protested his love of Norwegian
neutrality; then he hit, claiming that he was protecting it from the
British. No hard and fast rules can be made up for all wars or all
beligerents. The Germans behaved according to one pattern; the Japanese
another."

"For example, the German High Command sought to avoid bragging about
anything they could not accomplish (Johnno: see USA's performance on North
Korea which would involve engaging China with it hundreds of millions of
ready for war population) They often struck blows without warning but they
never said they would strike a blow when they knew or believed they could
not do it. The British and Americans made a timetable of this, and were able
to guess how fast the Germans thought they were going to advance in Russia.
Knowing this, the British and Americans planned their propaganda to counter
the German boasts; they tried to pin the Germans down to objectives they
knew the Germans would not take, in order to demonstrate to the peoples of
Europe that Nazi Germany had finally bitten off more than it could chew."

"Later the Allies remembered this German habit when the Nazis on the radio
began talking about their own secret weapons. When the British bombed the
V-1 ramps on the French coast, the German radio stopped that talk. The
British had additional grounds for supposing that the ramps thay had bombed
were part of the secret weapons that the Germans bragged about. The British
further knew that the Germans would try to counter the psychologigal effect
of the annouoncement of Allied D Day with some pretty vivid news of their
own. When the German radio began mentioning secret weapons again, the
British suspected the Germans had got around damage done to the ramps. D-Day
came; the Germans, in one single broadcast designed to impress the Japanese
and Chinese, announced the secret German weapon was about to be turned
loose, and that more such weapons would follow. One day later the first V-1
hit London."
And the final chapter ends thus

"For peacetime purposes, it is to be rermembered that tough enemies may hide
their scientists, their launching ramps, or their rockets, they cannot hide
their occasion for war, nor their own readiness measures. No government can
afford to seem the plain unqualified aggressor. Propanal ( Propaganda
Analysis) may prove to be one of the soundest war-forecasting systems
available to usin a period of ultra destructive weapons. Psychological
mobilization may be disguised; it cannot be concealed."
 
Johnno (from Linbarger) said:
"For peacetime purposes, it is to be rermembered that tough enemies may hide
their scientists, their launching ramps, or their rockets, they cannot hide
their occasion for war, nor their own readiness measures. No government can
afford to seem the plain unqualified aggressor. Propanal ( Propaganda
Analysis) may prove to be one of the soundest war-forecasting systems
available to usin a period of ultra destructive weapons. Psychological
mobilization may be disguised; it cannot be concealed."
that is very interesting. the last few days Blair has been spinning away the transfer of troops to Afganistan:
Barratt: British Troops Not Withdrawing, being Redeployed to Afghanistan (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/26/18368871.php)

"I should like to correct a myth that has been accepted by much of the media and accepted by the majority on the Right and Left because it fits their various agendas.

It is not true that a firm commitment has been made that the British are to withdraw from Iraq.

What is happening is simply a redeployment of some vitally required troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan,[...]
I have tried to combat this misinterpretation of what is actually happening by two diaries on Daily Kos as the events unfolded during last week here:

“The deception of the story of UK troop withdrawals “

and here:

“UK Troop Withdrawal Truth Finally Now Revealed�

Sadly, once announced it is almost impossible to remove the beliefs that this sort of spin creates. That British troops are withdrawing remains the understanding in many of our blogs and I heard it today on C-Span.

Ignoring the underlying truth has two effects: The ease with which the myths surrounding the supposed British withdrawal have been accepted by all parts of the political spectrum is a forewarning of what will be achievable by the Republicans in the run up to the 2008 elections. More importantly, it disguises the failures in Afghanistan to secure that country and the distraction that the Iraq invasion has been to the initially stated 9/11 goals of the current Administration.
While Dick cheney has 'secretly' been busy visiting US bases around IRAN:
forbes said:
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney landed at the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Monday afternoon for consultations with American military leaders ahead of a meeting with President Hamid Karzai.

Cheney landed at the base at Bagram, an hour north of Kabul, shortly after a meeting in neighboring Pakistan where he told Gen. Pervez Musharraf that al-Qaida is regrouping in Pakistan's remote border area and that Pakistan needs to do more to confront the problem.

Cheney's stops in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been shrouded in secrecy, and Afghan and U.S. officials refused to comment until after the vice president left the country. He was expected to be in Afghanistan only for a few hours.http://www(dot)forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/26/ap3461790.html
and Oman
abcnews said:
Cheney holds talks with Omani officials
Feb 25, 2007 — DUBAI (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Oman on Sunday and held talks with officials from the U.S.-allied Gulf Arab state, Al Jazeera television reported. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2903183
It (propaganda) is unrelenting.
 
Back
Top Bottom