anti-soldier propaganda

Hey there I thought this might be an interesting discussion to have.

You all know propaganda exists. But there seems to be a huge
push by the current administration to deem anyone who is "anti-Iraq-war"
as "anti-soldier".

Lets explore this because it's interesting. Maybe you all can offer some
examples of how you've seen this in action, too.

Here's my take. I know several people who served in Iraq. Both said "the mission changed daily." Neither felt the WMD thing was valid; they felt
they'd been misled and were highly pissed/upset about it.

Now. We know for a fact Bin Laden is still out there. It's been several years
since the WTC came down. That's a pretty long time, guys.

I'm not a liberal so don't balk at this topic cuz you think I'm anti-Republican. I'm not. Am anti-Bush administration. Big difference.

The Iraq "war" diverted our attention from Bin Laden. Military family groups are saying soldiers are miffed; that they feel betrayed. We also know
anti-US factions have spread like wildfire throughout the middle east since our entering the country.

80 percent of Iraqis want us out. Actually the polls may be higher now.

Our soldiers went over there thinking they were helping them but instead
they're met with bomb-lobbing whackos who appear to hate them more then Saddam.

Lets be frank - the Armchair Warriors who sent the troops into the Hornets Nest don't want the public to realize these things, right? Like,
they want us to think all the amputees are happy and no one feels bitter
like they did in Vietnam and their will be no MIAs and Bin Laden isn't important anymore. (Even though he's the one responsible for 9/11)

How would the current adminstration try to manipulate us into thinking
these things?

I'm curious to hear your responses. Pretend you're Bush. Pretend you
don't want the public to know there was no mission, no WMD and the soldiers in Iraq aren't being beseiged by every extremist wingnut known to man. Pretend you want to convey they are all happy out there. And that anyone who dares say: you shafted the soldiers, Bush - is an unpatriotic
jerk who hates guys in camo.

WHAT TECHNIQUES WOULD YOU USE TO PULL THIS OFF?

Think like a German.

I'm looking forward to hearing your responses.

decent writing bushblows, i just wanted to correct your poll figure. it's much closer to 50-60 percent of iraqis want U.S. forces/control out. still a large amount for sure but it's still not nearly 80% or higher.

I hear that after we glass the whole place Disney has plans to build a Disney Asia theme park. with rides like the Oil slide. and Virtual gunship. The whole thing will center around an Aladdin theme. and all the arabs that do survive will work the park for below minimum wage. But then again that is just Disney co. Pipe Dreaming

Errrr, where did you get your percentages from? My husband is in the military and was stationed in Baghdad, and he didn't say he felt betrayed about the war. He was glad to leave Iraq, that's for certain, but not one mention of feeling betrayed.

Btw, weren't you aware that they have found WMDs?
story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040701/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_040701212424&e=3

Hey, I love our troops as much as anyone


but, the shells the poles found were stamped Made In The USA(which is odd because nothing is made here anymore) and were sold to Saddam back in the 80's to battle the evil empire of the Iranians. Who cares about WMD's....we need nothing to justify us taking Iraq. They have a fifth of the worlds oil and my Hummer like cheap fuel, people have fought wars over dumber things.

You mean Anti-soldier propaganda like this story.

AP MINNEAPOLIS -- The Minnesota Twins' latest giveaway idea is drawing criticism from anti-war groups.

The Twins plan to distribute a GI Joe action figure at Monday night's game against the Kansas City Royals. The first 5,000 children at the game will get a nearly 4-inch tall action figure called Duke.

The Twins say the promotion is a way to honor local military personnel.

But groups such as Veterans for Peace, Friends for a Non-Violent World and Women Against Military Madness object to the giveaway and are asking the Twins to cancel it.

Sounds anti-soldier to me.

posted by Bushblows. 80 percent of Iraqis want us out. Actually the polls may be higher now.

posted by astroblade. i just wanted to correct your poll figure. it's much closer to 50-60 percent of iraqis want U.S. forces/control out.

So where exactly do you guys get your poll figures? Did you just make them up while you were writing this or what?

While I don't know who's telling the lies I've heard from a soldier that was over there that most the Iraqis he came in contact with wanted him there - he was saying 90% the opposite of what you guys are coming up with. Either the soldier was made to say that or your poles are FOS.

Not that it matters at this point, but it would be nice to know. Unless someone chimes in with something more believable I have to give the guy that was there more credibility then folks surfing polls on the web.



[edit on 6-7-2004 by outsider]

For a good summary of recent poll results in Iraq, read this article.

New Iraq Poll: U.S. Seen as an 'Occupying Force'

Other telling findings of the survey were that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, 71 percent (and that figure rises to 81 percent if the Kurdish areas in the north are excluded), now see the US-led coalition as an occupying force and not as liberators. USA Today reports that a solid majority, almost 60 percent, want the US and its allies to leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate.

For those of you who think American soldiers in Iraq are all happy campers, please read this article.

Many Troops Dissatisfied, Iraq Poll Finds

You have to register with the Washington Post to read the article. For those of you too lazy to register, here is a brief quote.

A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist.

The survey, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value.

I find this is often the case here, someone raises a point that deserves discussion, and everyone jumps all over the small print, dispute the polls all you like, quote left and right wing sources, but address the main point for gods sake. Do you feel that people who are anti war are being labled anti soldier?
If you are anti war, how do you then reconcile your love of your country and the right of your troops to act accordingly with your disgust at the continuing occupation and the embarressing political manouvering of your leaders.

I am an ex soldier who served in the first Gulf war amongst others, I have good mates who are in Iraq and I am almost as proud of my country's military as I am anything else, yet I think everything about this war is wrong, the shifting of emphasis from, 'danger to the world', to 'suppressor of his people', to name one, and as for WMD, please.

I support my troops and the troops of all nations, and regularly cast a critical eye over operations released to press and of reports of misconduct. I seem to have compartmentalised the military aspect from the political, and am able to back troop actions and at the same time be critical of the entire political process, many of you may find this odd, I would agree with you, it is, but thats the truth of it.

Incidently talking about critical eye, I saw on one thread a goup of servicemen shoot
(correctly) an insugent and then start whooping with joy like shool boys. This was defended saying, "ah well, release of tension"... etc. BO****KS. If I'd have been the SNCO present, I would have gone mental, there would have been an official warning followed by a charge of 'conduct to prejudice good order and military discipline, section 69.' That kind of thing is unacceptable and goes a long way to portraying the troops in a negative light, its also bloody unprofessional and dangerous, why weren't all those whoopers on their faces covering their arcs looking for other insurgents, instead of site seeing. nuf said.

i dont get it, why do you all support people that are killing people? Why would anyone care for minless brainwashed goons? Oh i know, becouse they have guns




i mean i can understand if you support soldiers that are defending you and your family, but these are political goons that are killing people for money...all bunch of them together. In WW2 people knew what they were fighting for, americans kill people for money these days.

Thanks for the links donguillermo. Both look like about what you would expect.

I would expect the Iraqis are tired of war and want to get on with their lives without outside influence. Likewise I would expect any soldier to feel like he wants to get the hell out of there & go home.

Regardless it's not up to the polls to finish this crap we got into. Iraqis say is limited, but probably better then they've had in the past and soldiers have a job to do without a choice.

I just hope the violence has peaked or will soon peak, so we can slowly wind things down.

Originally posted by Smudge
I find this is often the case here, someone raises a point that deserves discussion, and everyone jumps all over the small print, dispute the polls all you like, quote left and right wing sources, but address the main point for gods sake. Do you feel that people who are anti war are being labled anti soldier?

Some yes, some no. Just like with anything else, if the reader is anti-war but not anti-soldier, then they will probably not view such a position in a negative light. Conversely, if the reader is pro-war and pro-soldier, they might view such a position as anti-soldier. (and of course, there are those who are both anti-war and anti-soldier) This issue is too broad, and therefore by default, too big to stereotype with polls. The opinions vary dramatically, even amongst the troops themselves.

If you are anti war, how do you then reconcile your love of your country and the right of your troops to act accordingly with your disgust at the continuing occupation and the embarressing political manouvering of your leaders.

One way some reconcile this is to take into consideration the spin doctors have been at this thing 24/7. They will (and do) spin this war scenario to look as bad as possible because that is their position on the issues. It serves several purposes:

I) It has political ramifications, both home and abroad.

---A) The Democratic Party sees the war on terror as a built-in opportunity to disrespect the current administration (even if some of them they may secretly agree with the position, it's just too easy to criticize war scenarios. No one honestly likes war.)

---B) Globally, it's easy to criticize another nation for taking aggressive actions aganist another, no matter what the reasoning may be.

2) It has religious ramifications, both home and abroad.

---A) The Democratic Party is trying desperately to bring religious and anti-religious organizations, other than christianity, under their umbrella as they have manuevered the spins to implicate the current administration of being strictly wealthy fanatical christian right wing wackos who love war and guns to the exclusion of all else.

---B) They've made this into a religious cold war right on american soil, which has spilled over to other nations of the world as the result of Hollywood popularization of the same anti-american and anti-christian theme. A civil war of epic proportions lingers precariously in the wings as a result, and the Democrats could care less as long as the end result is a Democratic landslide at the voting booth. (prediction, if they are successful, expect to see all the issues they harped on constantly, to suddenly be played down dramatically. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black as a means of manuevering for political power and the younger, less experienced voters are being lead right down the rosy path to more of the same. All that will truly change on the issues are the faces, with only a few less important issues being decidedly socialistic or democratic in effect).

They want Bush's head and his cabinet on a platter, and the Republican Party as well. Expect them to suddenly become "Godly" when the situation calls for it, as they have alienated a huge portion of the voting population who call themselves "christian" (yes, silly democrats are unaware that many of their voters are christians. as a result, they keep alienating their own voting base. they think christians are just a miniority of rich republican religious wackos, but sadly for the democrats, this is just not the case. rather, this error in understanding is the result of their spin doctoring from elections past they have actually grown to believe. in other words, they have begun believing their own lies, lies they uttered in an attempt to dethrone their predecessors in elections of the past. that is, until christians started showing up at the voting booth in droves and christians who voted democratic in the past, are starting to vote republican because they feel as if the current democratic candidates don't represent them anymore and in fact, appear to hate them based on their religion). When it suddenly dawns on them that they are alienating their own voting base and not serving the will of the people, they will suddenly grow religious and the word "God" will escape their lips with increasing frequency. To those anti-religious and anti-christian in their voting base, it will appear as if their candidates have lost their minds. Right about then, it will suddenly dawn on them that their candidate is in fact just an opportunist, a professional spin doctor who's purpose is to make his opponent look as bad as possible (even if he agrees with him in secret). That's politics for you.

I am an ex soldier who served in the first Gulf war amongst others, I have good mates who are in Iraq and I am almost as proud of my country's military as I am anything else, yet I think everything about this war is wrong, the shifting of emphasis from, 'danger to the world', to 'suppressor of his people', to name one, and as for WMD, please.

Saddam was both an oppressor of his people and a danger to the world. The Clinton Administration was also decidedly against Saddam and even threatened to take him to task in a war if necessary. Luckily for the Democratic party, Clinton didn't make the move. He left that to Bush. Smart political move and nothing more.

So, what is it about the WMDs that you didn't understand?


[edit on 6-7-2004 by Undomiel]

thank you all for the interesting replies.

I heard the 80 percent stat several months ago on tv & the radio.

To prove this (ahem) I did indeed surf the net just now. Sorry this will take up so much space but thought it was important to post:

'80% of Iraqis want coalition troops out'
By Mark Turner in Baghdad
Published: July 6 2004 18:03 | Last Updated: July 6 2004 18:03


Two thirds of Iraqis either strongly or "somewhat" oppose the presence of US-led coalition forces, a new opinion poll has found, and 80 per cent say they should leave immediately or once a government is elected in January.

80% in Iraq Distrust Occupation Authority
Results of Poll, Taken Before Prison Scandal Came to Light, Worry U.S. Officials

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A10


Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

There were many other reputable news sources reporting the same percentage but didn't want to bombard you with the same stat again and again. You can always look them up yourselves.

Is it fair to keep soldiers over there when 80 percent of their "liberators"
want them out? I don't think so. Particularly in light of the fact Saddam
didn't destroy the WTC. So what if he's a loon? Why should we sacrifice
our soldiers for people who don't want us to be there?

To the poster whose husband was in Iraq - of course I don't know the opinion of every soldier stationed out there. Am glad to hear your husband came home safely. I have several friends who were in Iraq who strongly feel the govt lied to them about their "mission". (Which, they say, changed daily).

People underestimate how many muslims hate us in the middle east.
Sure people hated Saddam. But they hate Americans more!!!

It shocks me that people are stupid enuf to think we can "beat"
an ideology. And why the hell should we even try??

The focus, one would think, should be on capturing the killer of the Americans who died in the Twin Towers; not "liberating" bomb-hurling Iraqis.

As for the WMD - just wait. I betcha the George Administration
will claim to find a few more since election time is coming up. Haha.

(Also wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden is suddenly "found" right before the election, too. He'll probally be encased in copper like Han Solo
at the end of Empire Strikes Back, tho, so no one can obtain any DNA.)

bushblows,

You said:

As for the WMD - just wait. I betcha the George Administration
will claim to find a few more since election time is coming up. Haha.

My response:

But you see, this was one of the big arguments against the US going there, against Bush's decisions regarding Saddam, against the war, and finally against the entire Republican party. If indeed there are WMDs afterall, half the argument is moot, and the only argument left is that we can't change their ideology (which I happen to agree with you on). But let's face it, if they found them, they found them, and their reasons for going there and being there, were not pointless. This has been a major point of contention regarding the decision in the first place.

I guess I should take my own advice, however, and give up arguing this point, as the only thing that'd convince you they weren't wasting their time in Iraq is if one of Saddam's bombs had seriously effected someone other than his own people or his neighbors.

After all the discussion about what is a valid point and what isn't a correct poll analysis, whether the intel. community deliberately missled the politicians or the politicians fiddled the reports, it still all boils down to a personal morality issue for me, it just feels wrong to go and attack another country, because we feel that they MIGHT be a future threat.
Or because we feel that its people are mistreated ( there are, god knows, how many other countries in the same situation)

thank u again for the responses. Appreciate your input.
yes, invading another country is seldom a good thing for all concerned.
The wmd thing is a pretty tired topic; even Blair said they "may never find any" this week. They sure found lots of muslim extremists with bombs, thought!

Here is an article which talks about soldier's morale; someone
above asked about it.

How can anyone read this and think we should keep them there?
Or that chastising soldiers for "telling it like it is" to the supposedly
free press is acceptable


Pentagon may punish GIs who spoke out on TV

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, July 18, 2003



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fallujah, Iraq -- Morale is dipping pretty low among U.S. soldiers as they stew in Iraq's broiling heat, get shot at by an increasingly hostile population and get repeated orders to extend their tours of duty.

Ask any grunt standing guard on a 115-degree day what he or she thinks of the open-ended Iraq occupation, and you'll get an earful of colorful complaints.

But going public isn't always easy, as soldiers of the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division found out after "Good Morning America" aired their complaints.

The brigade's soldiers received word this week from the Pentagon that it was extending their stay, with a vague promise to send them home by September if the security situation allows. They've been away from home since September, and this week's announcement was the third time their mission has been extended.

It was bad news for the division's 12,000 homesick soldiers, who were at the forefront of the force that overthrew Saddam Hussein's government and moved into Baghdad in early April.

On Wednesday morning, when the ABC news show reported from Fallujah, where the division is based, the troops gave the reporters an earful. One soldier said he felt like he'd been "kicked in the guts, slapped in the face." Another demanded that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quit.

The retaliation from Washington was swift.


CAREERS OVER FOR SOME
"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

First lesson for the troops, it seemed: Don't ever talk to the media "on the record" -- that is, with your name attached -- unless you're giving the sort of chin-forward, everything's-great message the Pentagon loves to hear.

Only two days before the ABC show, similarly bitter sentiments -- with no names attached -- were voiced in an anonymous e-mail circulating around the Internet, allegedly from "the soldiers of the Second Brigade, Third ID."

"Our morale is not high or even low," the letter said. "Our morale is nonexistent. We have been told twice that we were going home, and twice we have received a 'stop' movement to stay in Iraq."

The message, whose authenticity could not be confirmed, concluded: "Our men and women deserve to be treated like the heroes they are, not like farm animals. Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home."

After this one-two punch, it was perhaps natural that on Thursday, the same troops and officers who had been garrulous and outspoken in previous visits were quiet, and most declined to speak on the record. During a visit to Fallujah, a small city about 30 miles west of Baghdad, military officials expressed intense chagrin about the bad publicity. And they slammed the ABC reporters for focusing on the soldiers' criticism of Rumsfeld, Bush and other officials and implying that they are unwilling to carry out their mission.

Originally posted by Smudge
Or because we feel that its people are mistreated ( there are, god knows, how many other countries in the same situation)

Yeah but those other countries aren't sitting on billions of dollars worth of oil. This point always gets me upset. You went to Iraq to liberate an oppresser, fine and dandy. Then why aren't you doing anything about Rwanda and such. These countries were far worse than Iraq. Mass Genocide anyone. Sure Saddam killed his fair share but nothing like what's going on in Africa. Maybe Bush wants AIDS to wipe them out.

Deenutz - you said it my friend. Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, Iran - so many other options.

I am new to ATS but I will put a standing challenge out there to prove without a doubt that Iraq posed a true strategic and imminent threat to the US to warrant a pre-emptive strike. They did not and that is really what is at stake here: not wmds, not links to anyone, not mass genocide committed years ago with us supplied goodies, etc.

Navydog, Iraq was the hub of all those nations you listed (probably not syria). Weapons shipments were flowing between North Korea and Iraq, and the way we discovered North Korea's Nuclear Program was still in full swing was communication of it between Iraq and Libya.

Originally posted by NavyDog
Deenutz - you said it my friend. Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, Iran - so many other options.

I am new to ATS but I will put a standing challenge out there to prove without a doubt that Iraq posed a true strategic and imminent threat to the US to warrant a pre-emptive strike. They did not and that is really what is at stake here: not wmds, not links to anyone, not mass genocide committed years ago with us supplied goodies, etc.

Do we have intel on Sudan, Rwanda and North Korea that proves they are connected to Al Qaeda? Funding? Weapons? Safe haven? I think Iraq had the misfortune of representing several things that the US was interested in:
1) Terrorism
2) Vendetta
3) Oil
4) WMD
The Clinton Administration also wanted Saddam out of the picture. Methinks we just got tired of playing around with him, as the sanctions against him had proven to be rather useless. I feel really sorry for the guys who have been there since September. That's gotta be tough. No one really likes war. No one really wants to be shot at. These stories of disgruntled soldiers will be prevalent, as they always are in war.

Oh and Navydog the UN has discovered that Iraq was hiding and exporting all their WMDs and illegal weapons before, during and after the US-led liberation of that country. Go to www.unmovic.com and go find the report yourself, they use a java applet or some crap so I can't just give you a link directly to it without a lot of work on my part and I don't give a crap about repeating old information.

You people need to stop listening to the Liberal media.