Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Wake America from Its Bloodless Trance
March 9, 2003 9:27 PM   Subscribe

Wake America from Its Bloodless Trance "Unfortunately, most of you will never see my anti-war commercial. Why? Because the major network news outlets refused to accept it, claiming that the imagery was too graphic... linking death to war seems to be taboo at a time when the connection should be on the top of our minds. Few in the major media are talking about casualties in the Iraq war, and it seems our nation does not want to confront the reality that the war will result in casualties, anywhere from a few thousand dead and wounded (itself a horrific number) to tens of thousands, according to international experts. Let's be clear – that's thousands of dead or wounded people, at a minimum. "

Six anti-war commercials , featuring, among others, Mos Def, Russell Simmons, Susan Sarandon and Ben and Jerry.
posted by Espoo2 (85 comments total)

 
great link.

Anyone out there want to convert these to avi or mpg? I refuse to accept QT or Real installed on my machine.
posted by sciatica at 9:45 PM on March 9, 2003


Yes, when I look for answers to complicated questions concerning world affairs, I eschew the news media and instead look to.........Mos Def?
posted by Karl at 9:46 PM on March 9, 2003


Is looking to Mos Def any worse than looking to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity? Methinks not.
posted by owillis at 9:57 PM on March 9, 2003


Gosh, maybe it's my bandwidth version or something, Karl, but I didn't seem to get the version of these ads that advocated not watching the news and gathering the facts in favor of simply opposing a war and doing whatever a celebrity says. Obviously, that's the message Sarandon and others are trying to convey, because it certainly can't just be an excuse for the right to dismiss a specific person's opinion just because a inordinately large number of people know who they are.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:59 PM on March 9, 2003


WWBAJD?

(what would ben and jerry do?)
posted by jonson at 10:02 PM on March 9, 2003


Is looking to Mos Def any worse than looking to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity?

No. I think they're all equally tied by common vanity and a certain flair for hyperbole. In the end, we have to gather our own data and make our own decisions, regardless of what Ben from Ben & Jerry's ice cream, or Susan Sarandon or Emmanual Lewis or Geraldo or Greg Brady or Rush Limbaugh or Ricardo Montalban has to say about it.
posted by Karl at 10:06 PM on March 9, 2003


It's hard for Americans to "gather our own data" when the news is one big commercial for the war, with no opportunity for other points of view to even purchase their way onto the airwaves.
posted by neuroshred at 10:16 PM on March 9, 2003


It's hard to imagine groups associated with the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, and the World Workers Party, who 'also espouse ''anti-Israeli and anti-capitalist views,''' would really be worth listening to or would even have America's best interests in mind, also featuring, among others, Mos Def, Russell Simmons, Susan Sarandon and Ben and Jerry.

(It's ironic that wealthy capitalists would be signing their name to petitions from groups which espouse communist revolution, isn't it?)
posted by hama7 at 10:25 PM on March 9, 2003


I can certainly understand the networks not wanting to air the disturbing images. Why not ditch the nastier corpse-shots? It's not like anybody thinks violent death doesn't suck, or that violent death isn't what happens in war. Those images are completely irrelevant to arguments against the war. It seems to me that the producers of the ads could ditch those graphics in favor of others that are less disturbing, and still get their message out.
posted by Mark Doner at 10:35 PM on March 9, 2003


What a laugh - the media sudddenly gets squeamish about violence and disturbing images? That's hilarious.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:48 PM on March 9, 2003


"Those images are completely irrelevant to arguments against the war."

they are trying to SELL us a war, with a PR campaign, and commercials, and shills as far as the eye can see. would you ever BUY something without even getting a chance to look at it? yeah, being confronted by a reality to which you consented only with the premise that it would be far away and impersonal sucks, but so does being incinerated in the name of "freedom".
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:50 PM on March 9, 2003


they are trying to SELL us a war

Anthemic theme songs
slogans
catch phrases
eye-friendly easy to understand iconic graphics
shoot-em-up video game style military commercials

What a hoot.

Sarge? I've lost approximately 4200 pixels of blood effect. Am I going to die?

No. You can just spawn again.

Whew!
posted by crasspastor at 11:02 PM on March 9, 2003


What is this about the major networks refusing to play these? I have not seen the other adds, but I did see the Susan Sarandon ad run before the State of the Union address, as well as all three cable networks (even Fox) run parts of the ad for free, talking about it...

Furthermore, the Mos Def ad, and the Ben & Jerry ad do not even show graphic imagery, aside from exaggerated charts with mostly uncited numbers....

While I can understand the networks not wanted to show gore and carnage, I can not see them reusing to sell air time for the ads talking about the cost of the war. I watch a fair amount of news during the day on all three of the cable networks and I am yet to see either of these ads. Surely Mr. Cohen's "True Majority" can afford to run the ads in prime time.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:05 PM on March 9, 2003


I'd trust Mos Def's knowledge of current affairs over Ann Coulter's any day. Smart dude, he is. Even better, what the world needs now is CHUCK MUTHAFUKKIN D.
posted by afx114 at 11:15 PM on March 9, 2003


Actually if you saw the ads it was most likely your local cable system running them and NOT Fox/CNN/MSNBC or the broadcast nets.

It's ironic that wealthy capitalists would be signing their name to petitions from groups which espouse communist revolution, isn't it?

Yes, wacko communists are against the war ergo all people against the war are wacko communists. Right?
posted by owillis at 11:17 PM on March 9, 2003


This crap in inexcusable. It was the right that pissed all over the Fairness Doctrine and now doesn't even want to pretend to be objective. There are tons of commercials that simply will never get airplay because it goes against the politics of the network itself. Odd how a network can have its own politics, then again corporatations are people too.

The message here is that even money can't get you on the air, especially when there's more money towing the conservative line and keeping information from people. So much for "deregulation" and laissez-fair economics in media.
posted by skallas at 11:25 PM on March 9, 2003


On a related note, thememoryhole has some nice graphic photos up and some even nicer quotes on a page called This is War. Perhaps some of the chickenhawks will get to see what a real dead person looks like.
posted by skallas at 11:27 PM on March 9, 2003


oh good god, what's next, anti war commercials by Bozo the Clown and Captain Crunch?

a big giant wtf.
posted by xmutex at 11:31 PM on March 9, 2003


It's hard for Americans to "gather our own data" when the news is one big commercial for the war, with no opportunity for other points of view to even purchase their way onto the airwaves.

Have you heard of this new thing called the "Internet"?

Claming that there are no way to access other points of view, is bullshit. The major networks, or cable news may not reflect your particular bias or ideology, but there are many other sources to get your 'data'.

Anyone who thinks all big media is a 'big commercial for the war' hasn't read the New York Times or watched Dan Rather in the last year.

Oliver: Calling a communist, a communist, is not McCarthysim. And it should be taken in to account people who associate themselves with groups like WWP, like Susan Sarandon. This is not say that Sarandon is a communist. But why should I take advise from someone who either is too native to know who backs A.N.S.W.E.R., or knows that the WWP is involved and still participates in their rallies.

I know that most people who are against war are not communists. But I have a very hard time taking these celebrity activists seriously when they align themselves with groups that have a stated goal of starting a revolution to overthrowing the US government and form a communist utopia.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:36 PM on March 9, 2003


(It's ironic that wealthy capitalists would be signing their name to petitions from groups which espouse communist revolution, isn't it?)

Oh, if you mean one expects they should more sign their names to, say, whites first racial preferences policies in invisible ink? Indeed...
posted by y2karl at 11:48 PM on March 9, 2003


But I have a very hard time taking these celebrity activists seriously when they align themselves with groups that have a stated goal of starting a revolution to overthrowing the US government and form a communist utopia.

So you feel that one mustn't compromise values by making alliances of convenience? Man, you must really hate this administration.
posted by condour75 at 12:01 AM on March 10, 2003


Iraqfilter
posted by Beholder at 12:06 AM on March 10, 2003


condour75: Tu Quoque
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:07 AM on March 10, 2003


What's a bloodless trance?
posted by shoos at 1:58 AM on March 10, 2003


What's a bloodless trance?

The only previous mention of it which google came up with was this eight-year-old review of a rock climbing book. It's quite a good phrase, in the correct context. What the purple fock it's doing in the headline of the linked article is a little beyond me, although I do think they could do a lot worse than to get Ken Wilson to write their next piece.
posted by walrus at 2:40 AM on March 10, 2003


It's one thing to desire peace. It's quite another to endorse, support and associate oneself with the propaganda of anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro Marxists and communist terror supporters.
posted by hama7 at 3:40 AM on March 10, 2003


I dunno.. I dont watch TV and have no problem finding balanced views on both sides I have no sympathy for the problems broadcast media causes because it is self induced. There are alternatices it's your choice.
posted by stbalbach at 4:23 AM on March 10, 2003


I don't know. All the peace oriented keep saying is that we need tougher inspections and tougher inspections. We do know that Iraq has been less than forthcoming during the current inspections, and I suspect they will continue to do so until since there is truthfully no real penalty for non-compliance.

Please don't think I am a hawk here, because I am not. But if we look at this from a sort of business perspective, war does make some sense.

Let's say you have an employee (or group of employees) that are consistently breaking rules and engaging in activity that can or will damage the company. There is a point where continued counseling sessions and disciplinary "write-ups" become useless without the underlying threat of termination.

I believe we can push Iraq and push Iraq to comply with inspections until the end of time, but, without the threat of some sort of real punishment, there's no real goad to get them to truthfully comply.

/me ducks...
posted by Samizdata at 4:42 AM on March 10, 2003


I certainly would have no problem with those ads airing. So long as the were aired next to equally graphic photos depicting what has been actually happening for a decade or so to Iraqi citizens at the hands of Saddam Hussain. The rapes, tortures, gruesome murders, the death of entire villages. Its estimated that in the 15 or so years he's been in power, Saddam has killed something close to a million of his own people.

Oddly, it seems as though Susan hasn't gotten around to dramatizing that, nor seems to be complaining that the media isn't covering it in enough depth.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:02 AM on March 10, 2003


Damned celebrites keep ruining everything. First Sting ruins my rainforest clearing hobby, KD Lang wont let me eat meat, now this Sarandon broad won't let me enjoy a nice war.

I'm kidding but regardless of the right or wrong of a cause, celebrity activists drive me up a wall. Especially since, as Dennis Miller put it "aside from telling you exactly what to think, they want absolutely nothing to do with you." Well, except see their movie or buy their album.
posted by jonmc at 5:12 AM on March 10, 2003


I think "bloodless trance" is quite accurate. Here's why: when I sit at the computer reading and obsessively posting on Metafilter for more than 1/2 hour, my circulation slows down and my hands and feet become white and cold in the 64 degree (fahrenheight) house temp. as my blood retreats to my body core.

The same thing would happen if I were lying on the couch, eating snacks and watching network TV.
posted by troutfishing at 5:32 AM on March 10, 2003


Thanks for the links espoo2.

As for the chickenhawk "arguments" casting aspersions towards those who oppose war, such are unworthy of extended comment as many only wish to derail the thread anyway. Go to the recruiting office or shut the hell up.

Celebrities are citizens who have the right to voice an opinion. Their use of wealth to advance that opinion has infinitely more legitimacy than any corporation.
People who oppose war cannot be smeared as communist, thank you very much Mr. McCarthy.

The conscientious who oppose war due to their faith, I applaud you.

As for large multinational corporations who REFUSE to run these ads, bring back the Fairness Doctrine and redefine the "rights" of corporations.
posted by nofundy at 5:45 AM on March 10, 2003


FreeperFilter.
posted by quonsar at 5:45 AM on March 10, 2003


So long as the were aired next to equally graphic photos depicting what has been actually happening for a decade or so to Iraqi citizens at the hands of Saddam Hussain.

You're right. It would show how well American-led bloodshed would complement the Iraqi-led bloodshed. I think they will go together quite well.
posted by 4easypayments at 5:48 AM on March 10, 2003


Go to the recruiting office or shut the hell up.

Thanks for that philosophical gem, nofundy. Isn't that just as infantile as the "America: Love it or Leave It" arguement that conservatives spout all the time?

As for the chickenhawk "arguments" casting aspersions towards those who oppose war, such are unworthy of extended comment as many only wish to derail the thread anyway.

Right. I forget that dissent is suddenly unfashionable & "unworthy" if a person doesn't see things from your particular worldview. All this diversity of opinion is really ruining the thread! Please go back to your little utopia in the sky, and allow the rest of us to opine freely, if you don't mind.

(Oh, why am I bothering)
posted by Karl at 6:08 AM on March 10, 2003


So hama7, if Sarandon is a communist because she "endorse[s], support[s] and associate[s] with" some socialist organizations, does that mean that the Bush family are Nazis, given that Prescott Bush "endorsed, supportd and associated with" Nazis during World War II? Or are they terrorists, given that one of the Bush family's biggest Saudi partners in the oil industry is the bin Laden family?

How about we drop the guilty by assocaition shennanigans and critique the ads on the merit of their arguments?
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:10 AM on March 10, 2003


drop the guilty by assocaition shennanigans

Please. The entire Bush administration (who I don't like) is crucified on daily basis around here for their various and sundry associations with oil companies, corporations & corrupt governments. Why shouldn't we hold these celebrity activists to the same standard?

Supporting an activist effort that also supports Stalin's regime does expose a bit of naivete & culpability. But then, these are Hollywood actors. When have they ever represented our interests in a way not motivated by vanity?
posted by Karl at 6:38 AM on March 10, 2003


Hama7, you're using a link from the New York Post and articles by David Horowitz and Bill O'Reilly to argue that one can be judged by the company one keeps? BWAHAHAHAHA.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:39 AM on March 10, 2003


Supporting an activist effort that also supports Stalin's regime

Eh? Stalin is still alive and has a regime to boot? And no one told me!
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:44 AM on March 10, 2003


Right. I forget that dissent is suddenly unfashionable & "unworthy" if a person doesn't see things from your particular worldview.

So name calling and blog "yelling"(which I so eloquently demonstrated with my "shut the hell up" comment :-)) is good and constructive discourse? You Commie pinko fag!!

On a lighter note, this is damn funny!

Can't we discuss without all jingoism folks?
posted by nofundy at 6:46 AM on March 10, 2003


also supports Stalin's regime

If I'd said past-tense "supported" it would imply ANSWER was supporting Stalin during his regime. Was ANSWER even around then? In any case, please attend to the arguement, not the grammar.

On a lighter note, this is damn funny!
Can't we discuss without all jingoism folks?


Way to sidestep your way out of a jam, nofundy. I didn't expect any less.
posted by Karl at 6:56 AM on March 10, 2003


In any case, please attend to the arguement, not the grammar.

Unfortunately, this is impossible: arguments are made up words and grammar, and in this case, the grammar reveals the lack of depth in your argument. How could ANSWER support something that was no longer in existence when they were founded?

The whole guilt by assocaition is based on a shallow understanding of how political coalitions are formed. As someone who is against war (unless the U.N. votes otherwise), I happen to hold the same opinion as socialists, fundy Christians, liberal Christians, Muslims, Jews, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, union bosses, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, etc. It would be stupid and undemocratic for me to refuse to work with them on a cause we have in common, but very few people would be foolish enough to imagine that I agree with any or all of them on any other issue simply because I agree with them on this one.
ANSWER are communists, and annoying, and I don't agree with their basic ideology. But in the case of not wanting a preemptive war, or a war without U.N. approval, I'm willing to set aside my differences with them to work on this common cause. If ANSWER suddenly decided that the anti-war cause was worth a bloody revolt, or if they started trying to overthrow the government and install a communist regime, I'd obviously oppose them. But they're not doing that; they're organizing peacful marches, and so long as we have a common goal, it'd be shortsighted of me not to consolidate efforts with them.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:19 AM on March 10, 2003


How could ANSWER support something that was no longer in existence when they were founded?

Oh come on. This is a joke right? It's impossible to support something retroactively, or philsophically? You're creating a pointless semantic arguement. The answer is still yes, ANSWER supports/supported Stalin's regime, and ethically I think it's pretty icky to want to attend their rallies. Why not rally in another location? Or with other methods?
posted by dhoyt at 7:29 AM on March 10, 2003


ANSWER supports/supported Stalin's regime, and ethically I think it's pretty icky to want to attend their rallies.

So ANSWER have said that they "retroactively" support Stalin's regime? Documentation?
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:35 AM on March 10, 2003


And, sorry for the double-post, but you have two MeFi userids? (Karl, dhoyt) ??? Why the switch in mid-thread?
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:39 AM on March 10, 2003


I see no problem airing these movies - free marketplace of ideas, right? I'm a bit surprised that the networks did have a problem with it. I mean, perhaps at after-9 p.m. caveat, but other than that, there's no dearth of blood on tv. A little disingenuous for them to get squeamish now.

That said, I think it might be a disservice to automatically assume that people who support the war and/or the president are automatically either mentally defective or somehow brainwashed, just like it is a disservice to automatically assume those who protest the war and/or do not support Bush are commies or do not love America. While the case can be made for individuals on both sides, by and large it is false for the vast majority - a stereotype, and a particularly vicious one.

Fact is, there are excellent, even compelling points on both sides o rthis argument. Were each side to acknowledge that for the other, and post accordingly, this and myriad other threads might generate the sorts of discussion we all get together and rue the loss of every 3-4 days in metatalk.

I'm just saying. *goes back to sweeping and whistling*
posted by UncleFes at 7:41 AM on March 10, 2003


Go to the recruiting office or shut the hell up.

Amen to that. Perhaps seeing murder firsthand might alter someones perception of it. After all, god forbid they are told that war is bad, especially by a celebrity!
posted by iamck at 7:43 AM on March 10, 2003


they are trying to SELL us a war

Becuase they have those annoying graphics, swooshes, etc. it means that they are advocating war? The same way they support space shuttle disasters because they have annoying graphics for that too?

Let's also consider how much money the news networks lose on their war coverage. This stuff is expensive and brings in little advertising.
posted by ednopantz at 7:53 AM on March 10, 2003


Go to the recruiting office or shut the hell up.

I did. November of 1999. Now you shut the hell up.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:06 AM on March 10, 2003


I think the problem most of the reasonable right has with ANSWER in particular is that they're _organising_ the rallies, not merely participating in them. I can understand marching with Stalinists if they simply happen to show up as part of another protest (though I still wouldn't feel comfortable with them there, personally), but the fact that they're organising protests, and therefore setting the agenda (for example when they nixed Michael Lerner from speaking) means that when you go to an event set up by ANSWER, you're attending a Stalinist event.

I mean, the white supremacy movement is generally anti-war, but I wouldn't go to a white supremascist anti-war rally, nonetheless. Just because you're trying to make common cause between otherwise disparate groups doesn't mean that one should be uncritical about who one makes common cause with. Some people, despite agreeing with one's position superficially, are not worth having on one's side.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:16 AM on March 10, 2003


This thread seems to have been efficiently diverted from (what I take to be) it' original point - the issue of US major media outlet's refusal to air Anti-War commercials.

1) What about free-market principles?....but of course media CAN pick and choose which advertising it chooses to air, hot dollars in hand or not. No anti-discrimination laws currently apply, as far as I'm aware.........I wonder: if the Anti-War advertisers couch their ads in overtly religious terms, would the network's ( NetWerks? ) refusal then amount to any illegal type of religious discrimination (probably not, though).

2) "Claming that there are no way to access other points of view, is bullshit. The major networks, or cable news may not reflect your particular bias or ideology, but there are many other sources to get your 'data'..." Does Steve_at_Linnwood, here, acknowledge mainstream media bias? It seems so. But there's always the Internet...

I could reply to this with a patronizing "Most people (Americans) are lazy!" comment. Except that I don't think it's true. On the contrary, I think that I ( Troutfishing ) am far lazier than most Americans - who don't have much time to sift through endless internet sites and Blog commentary: they are spending their time commuting, working overtime to make ends meet, working 2nd jobs, hunting for work, food-shopping, raising kids.......

But sure, Steve: AntiWar protesters seeking to air their message are lazy: all they need to do is sift through their pockets and change drawers to scratch together a few hundred billion dollars for leveraged buyouts of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX..........But of course we Know that the protesters are lazy (like me!) - they're socialists (Marxists, even!) seeking to sponge off the hard working rich who lead the US in a noble, altruistic charge to build wealth and true shareholder value.......at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Harken Energy.............

I Steve_at_Linwood
posted by troutfishing at 8:17 AM on March 10, 2003


Oops. That's Steve_at_Linnwood. Sorry, Steve, it wasn't intentional, just a little dyslexia coming thru.
posted by troutfishing at 8:19 AM on March 10, 2003


I can understand marching with Stalinists

Could we please establish, with some documentation, that ANSWER are Stalinists?
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:25 AM on March 10, 2003


Why the switch in mid-thread?

One is a an account account I created at home, one is one I created a long time ago at work (something I should probably be doing!). I didn't realize I was logged in incorrectly til after I posted.

Documentation?

I'm not sure what qualifies for concrete documentation, but it's been mentioned here and here. Please feel free to predictably tear those sources apart. Or, someone who's not at work, find better sources. :)

Among other things, ANSWER also appears to support Milosevic, the Tienaman massacre & North Korea, but I don't want that to soil anyone's conscience.
posted by dhoyt at 8:33 AM on March 10, 2003


Pseudoephedrine, you could not be more correct

Does Steve_at_Linnwood, here, acknowledge mainstream media bias?

Why yes! I have been saying there is a liberal bias in the major media for years! ;)
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:37 AM on March 10, 2003


Behind the Placards
The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
by David Corn
LA Weekly, November 1 - 7, 2002

eustacescrubb: David Corn, is an editor at The Nation... hardly a pro-war magazine.

If that is not enough information, let me know I can dig some more up.

And troutfishing, I ? you too!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:47 AM on March 10, 2003


Let's also consider how much money the news networks lose on their war coverage. This stuff is expensive and brings in little advertising.

Well then, there you have it. They could really use those dollars from anti-war advertising after all. So why refuse such good money? Liberal media my ass!

I have been saying there is a liberal bias in the major media for years! ;)

Appropriate usage of a wink emoticon. How to do a "nod" emoticon too? Saying it and it being true are, or course, two different things. Just playing the referees, eh?
posted by nofundy at 9:16 AM on March 10, 2003


Eustacescrubb> ANSWER was formed by members of the Worker's World Party. The Worker's World Party puts out Worker's World, a magazine espousing views that might be loosely characterised as "Stalinist". The homepage of their magazine can be found here and has a useful search function. Here they are praising Kim Il Sung and his son, who are generally considered to be Stalinists. Here, the magazine defends Slobodan Milosevic, another dictator considered Stalinist. They are ardently pro-Soviet as a general policy, as any article at random will show.

Their tone on Stalin himself changes slightly after the fall of the Soviet Union(when they become more Maoist), but still generally exonerates his early work and denounces his later policies only from the viewpoint of an inappropriate reaction to Western provocation. This article from 1992 praises Stalin's agricultural collectivisation schemes. Marxists call Sam Marcy, leader of the Worker's World Party, "Pro-Stalinist". And the World Socialist Web Site critiques the Worker's World Party's pro-Stalinist viewpoints.

How's that?
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:34 AM on March 10, 2003


Yes, yes. The left wing includes some kooks, who are embarassing to the rest of the group. The right wing also includes some kooks who are embarassing to the rest of the group. No doubt there are centrist kooks who give a bad name to all the other middle-of-the-roaders. Acknowledged. Move on.
posted by ook at 9:41 AM on March 10, 2003


MidasMulligan please provide a source for your 'million murdered by Saddam Hussein' claim. The most I can find is less than 160,000 (estimated) Kurdish deaths. Mostly not codemned at the time by the US or UK, who supplied Iraq weapons at the time (some of which the British people paid for). That was not the first time Britain was involved in the Iraqui war mahine.
'(Bomber) Harris said in 1924 that he had taught Iraqis "that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or wounded". '

However, you may be suprised to know that the 500,000 children killed by sanctions figure is well documented (using the Unicef figures of child mortality, my calculations concluded that the 500,000 number was a lowest possible estimation), and does not include those adults killed by the almost continuous bombing that the country has suffered over the past 12 years.
I am glad that you are letting humanitarian concerns preoccupy your mind of late, however I am not sure you are getting the whole story.
posted by asok at 9:48 AM on March 10, 2003


Ook> That's not the point. The point is that one shouldn't encourage those kooks by allowing them to organise and control an ostensibly "popular" movement. The anti-war movement is doing so by letting ANSWER run things. That's problematic, to say the least.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:50 AM on March 10, 2003


nofundy: I thought I told you to shut the hell up.

ook: Read Pseudoephedrine's post right here.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:52 AM on March 10, 2003


To all who provided requested documentation - I thank you. I cannot say what i think of it all because I have not yet finished reading. But it has definitely made me rethink the idea of partnering with ANSWER.


Still against the war, though.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:23 AM on March 10, 2003


Be against the war, but don't let people like A.N.S.W.E.R speak for you...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:38 AM on March 10, 2003


nofundy: i thought i told you to shut the hell up

Nobody listens to you steve. I see my example of rude behavior is very appealing to you. Go figure.

What does A.N.S.W.E.R. have to do with the FPP regarding the major networks refusing ads against Bush's war?

I declare another derail! Afraid to talk about the subject at hand so just change the subject. Talk about Stalinist!
posted by nofundy at 10:54 AM on March 10, 2003


I know it is difficult to avoid encouraging 'kooks' by carefull consumerism and awareness of political undercurrents in the mainstream, but we try don't we?
Extremist points of view asually exist within any organisation/society, taken out of context they can seem quite scary, but they are usually balanced by the organisation/society as a whole.
Apologies for any offense taken to the rather *extreme* final link in previous screed.
posted by asok at 10:56 AM on March 10, 2003


What does A.N.S.W.E.R. have to do with the FPP regarding the major networks refusing ads against Bush's war?

Since you asked, Beavis--the post described a method of using graphic advertisements to get across a political message. Advertising being media, the conversation veered toward discussion of celebrity opinions, eventually evolving into the notion that one must think for himself instead of being represented by celebrities or dubious action groups, which is where ANSWER came in.

If you need anything else explained, please feel free to ask. Otherwise, toddle off to the next IraqFilter post.
posted by dhoyt at 11:12 AM on March 10, 2003


Your conscending remarks aside dhoyt, these opinions of Bush's war are in the Majority and celebrities have as much right to express those Majority opinions as you do yours.

Now, if reporting war is as expensive as claimed, and these opinions represent the other side of a debate about going to war, why should All the major networks refuse to run them? Whatever happened to the right of dissent, most especially political dissent? I seem to remember something about that in a little document called the Constitution.

But then, any opinion contrary to the Rove-approved one looks to be denied access to the public airwaves by multi-national corporations seemingly afraid of angering the Bush Master.

Keep your goose stepping in lock formation going there dhoyt!
posted by nofundy at 11:31 AM on March 10, 2003


Uh, yes, I'm "goose stepping" for advocating independent thought, of all things, not to mention my own personal dislike of Bush.

Nofundy, are you a bot?
posted by dhoyt at 11:50 AM on March 10, 2003


It sure sounds like you are advocating the suppression of independent thought if you believe these people don't have a right to publish a dissenting opinion. Do explain. As I understand it these folks are NOT related to the infamous group who oraginzed the rallies (the thread derail.)

Nofundy, are you a bot?
No. Are you paid to post?

As the U.S. military prepares to fight what could be the most sophisticated, high-tech war in history, its public-affairs troops here already have launched a media offensive.

Officers at the U.S. Central Command media center have engaged in various techniques -- from logging on to Internet chat rooms to providing ready-to-use factoids for cable TV news shows -- to get the Pentagon's message out to the world.

posted by nofundy at 12:15 PM on March 10, 2003


It sure sounds like you are advocating the suppression of independent thought if you believe these people don't have a right to publish a dissenting opinion.

You're impossible. Not only have I not said anything resembling that ("suppression", wtf?), you keep ascribing this bizarre conservative perspective to me when it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Are you seriously that partisan or binary in your thinking?

Whatever happened to the right of dissent, most especially political dissent?

Didn't I just say that exact same thing, about ten comments up? Do you read anyone else's comments but your own? Consider this pointless discussion over.
posted by dhoyt at 12:35 PM on March 10, 2003


nofundy, I seem to have gotten your attention...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:05 PM on March 10, 2003


Uh not, like, to interrupt this rancor with a discussion about the link or anything, but did anyone else notice the cool TrueMajority.com crap they're hawking? Yes! Just like Mos Def you can get yourself a scrolly pen!

While you're there, prove everything they say about peace marchers being wackos true by getting a pair of rainbow glasses. "The best way for making the world look right until we actually make it right. "
posted by Ogre Lawless at 3:23 PM on March 10, 2003


Asok - while I rarely agree with anything the New York Times prints, I know most people here do. With that, I offer you this article which states, "...figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark..." (eighth paragraph). As for the bit about "XXXX sold him the weapons..." While I agree that it was probably a bad decision to sell the arms, are you saying that countries who sold him weapons have (by proxy) actually done the killing? Then that would explain why France and Germany are so anxious to prevent war - I mean they've been killing a lot of people selling their parts (illegally) and wouldn't want anyone to discover how many people they've killed right?
posted by stormy at 4:38 PM on March 10, 2003


This is a case of the bot calling the kettle plaid.
posted by crasspastor at 4:46 PM on March 10, 2003


...figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark...

this implies ~300-500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths outside of those mentioned below, but Burns doesn't substantiate it.

70-150k Iraqi Kurd deaths (BBC)
375k Iraqi deaths from Iran-Iraq war (Federation of American Scientists)
50-150k Iraqi deaths in the Gulf War (Defense Intelligence Agency figure)
posted by eddydamascene at 6:13 PM on March 10, 2003


'An Open Letter to Anti-War Protesters': "Don't be their dupes", by Brian Sayre
posted by hama7 at 10:02 PM on March 10, 2003




Just because you're trying to make common cause between otherwise disparate groups doesn't mean that one should be uncritical about who one makes common cause with.
-Pseudoephedrine
posted by condour75 at 10:12 PM on March 10, 2003


Condour> I like it. But please, don't confuse being anti-Stalinist with being pro-Bush.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 1:23 AM on March 11, 2003


you're linking to Front Page Magazine, hama7? Why not just link to Newsmax while you're at it?

(gotta love what passes for reasoned argument at Front Page, in their cheat sheet on how to come up with snappy retorts to those pesky leftists:
Leftists: Belgians are against the war.
Answer: I can live without Waffles and ice cream.
)

(hmm, sounds like a couple MeFi people I know.)
posted by Vidiot at 1:58 AM on March 11, 2003


Why not just link to Newsmax while you're at it?

Is there some problem with Newsmax?

(You might as well link to the New York Times.)
posted by hama7 at 2:59 AM on March 11, 2003


Is there some problem with Newsmax?
(You might as well link to the New York Times.)


Ever heard of fact checkers? That's the difference that matters. Try the Weakly World News next time or The National Enquirer, they've got more believable press.
posted by nofundy at 8:09 AM on March 11, 2003


On a related note, thememoryhole has some nice graphic photos up and some even nicer quotes on a page called This is War. Perhaps some of the chickenhawks will get to see what a real dead person looks like.

Fantastic link, skallas. This is what it's all about, after all. The news media has a fucking responsibility to air these images. But we think of them in the same manner people like to eat steak, but don't want to know what goes on at the slaughterhouse.

The difference, of course, being that this slaughterhouse involves human beings.
posted by kgasmart at 8:54 AM on March 11, 2003


just lost entire post due to Microsoft being SHITE, so please excuse the curtness
stormy, thanks for the NYT link, but I was looking for the source of the 'million killed' figure, rather than a parroting of it.
stormy - 'As for the bit about "XXXX sold him the weapons..." While I agree that it was probably a bad decision to sell the arms, are you saying that countries who sold him weapons have (by proxy) actually done the killing?'
They are implicated, in my mind. Arms salesmen abuse loopholes in international law to sell arms to countries on which there are arms sales embargoes, as well as countries who are known to use military weapons on their civilian populations. They usually do this via a re-seller, as in the deal described in the WT link you provided.
Governments are unlikely to highlight (.pdf) these gross infingements on human rights, given their complicity.
The point about ECGD, is that the British people end up paying for arms sales to vicious dictators when they renege on their payments.
'Many people question the UK's involvement in military exports. An independent survey prepared for the Ministry of Defence in July 1998 showed that 62% of those interviewed felt that the UK should sell military equipment only to close allies. The same survey showed that 41% of the public are opposed to all arms exports, a figure which rises to 47% amongst women. The percentage opposing arms exports would almost certainly be greater if it were not commonly, but erroneously, believed that such sales are necessary to boost employment in the UK.'
posted by asok at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2003


Maybe if we're all real real quiet and good, some of the above will finally justify to us all how calling people "Stalinists" or "commies" or "terrorists" instead making at least the smallest token attempt to deal with the arguments of these supposedly "lightweight" celebrities isn't the most basic error in logic, taught to seventh-grade students of rhetoric. Pathetic....
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2003


« Older What's up with Wynton Marsalis? And what's up wit...  |  Heavy Seas... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments