Friday, 3 January 2020

Afghan Papers Inadvertently Document WaPo’s Role in Spreading Official Lies

quote [ If the Post is now publishing material demonstrating that US officials have been “following the same talking points for 18 years,” emphasizing how they are “making progress,” “especially” when the war is “going badly,” shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that it has been cheerleading this same line for all of those 18 years? Doesn’t it have a responsibility to examine how it served as a primary vehicle for those officials to spread these same “talking points” to spin the coverage in the desired fashion? ]

After 18 Years of US Occupation, Poll Finds Zero Percent of Afghans Thriving, 85 Percent "Suffering"

Already seeing plenty of headlines, social media posts, and memes trying to demonize Iran in the same way we do every other country the US sticks their nose into. Even saw a WMD style accusation floating around. I should hope those on the "left" remember that we're against war because it's wrong, not because Trump didn't get authorization or some legalese bullshit... but I don't have my hopes up.

#madprideWasRight

[SFW] [dystopian violence] [+4]
[by steele@7:25pmGMT]

Comments

zenviper said @ 7:55pm GMT on 3rd Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
Thank you - it was a treat to see Noam Chomsky quoted - truly an underappreciated american hero.
avid said @ 8:21pm GMT on 3rd Jan [Score:1 Good]
Yeah, the first time I read him, it was pretty mind-blowing.

For anyone that wants a TL;DR for Chomsky on the "free press": https://youtu.be/34LGPIXvU5M
endopol said @ 6:22pm GMT on 4th Jan
The US Constitution is not legalese bullshit. It is pretty concise and clear on its very sensible assertion that the executive shouldn't start wars single-handedly.
steele said @ 7:41pm GMT on 4th Jan
Yeah, you're missing my point. If your only concern about the US raining down fire from the sky is whether or not the commander in chief got congressional approval first as per a 200 year old document written by slave owners then you're probably not someone I would consider a reliable ally for the future. Laws are not morals. And the people that treat them as such, when push comes to shove, tend to side with the oppressors.

It's a lot like that whole supposed Churchill quote:
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”


Either you're against war and much more because it's morally wrong, or you're just haggling about your price. And as with arguments regarding the cost of social services (Who's going to pay for it?!), rather than moral concerns for those that are suffering, the approach puts the debate far more to the right side of the political spectrum than most people realize.
endopol said[2] @ 10:42pm GMT on 4th Jan
To be clear, I believe this act of war should not have occurred. In condemnation of this act, I appeal to the universally recognized, demonstrably violated, constitutional powers of the Congress.
I cannot as easily appeal to the abhorrence of war, because I do believe that war has a finite, albeit huge, price. But I believe that a country should act as soberly as possible in reckoning this price.

What in particular would you change about the constitution, aside from its provenance?
steele said @ 12:00am GMT on 5th Jan
I mean, ignoring that its provenance was likely largely for the purpose of maintaining the legality of slavery... It literally still allows for slavery. The 13th amendment contains a glaring loophole that codifies slavery and ensures that the same authority that makes the rules can enslave you for violating those rules. Matter of fact, I'd say the current fight for legalization of marijuana is a very good example of the problem when people put laws on the same level as morals. Getting back to the constitution, I'd say that it's purpose of serving only white property owning men was a pretty big drawback. Women didn't get the right to vote till 1920, PoC didn't really secure their voting rights until 1964. We still don't have an economic bill of rights, though my version would probably be more anti-capital than the current version Bernie is pushing for, but regardless, the fact that it's necessary paints the sort of country the founders weren't going for when it comes to everyone else.
endopol said[2] @ 12:28am GMT on 5th Jan
An Economic Bill of Rights is a great idea. Now, think, what a shame would it be if we fought for it, ratified it in Congress, and the President just ignored it.
Rule of law is not "rule by law" or "law'n'order". It is universal obedience to mutually-agreed-upon rules. The latter are obedience to the whims of the individuals in power, for the sake of stability.
steele said[1] @ 1:02am GMT on 5th Jan
lol, you're still ignoring my whole point. I'm not saying that law itself is meaningless, I'm saying that by getting nitpicky over whether or not it was legal rather than moral, you've already legitimized the act. Your haggling with the military industrial complex (represented in both parties) has begun, and it's on their terms. If anything the article you've shared demonstrates how ineffective nitpicking over legality actually has been, or rather to defer to one of the most poignant memes of this administration...

endopol said @ 1:33am GMT on 5th Jan
I've made my point why I prefer legal arguments at times like these. I don't see how emphasizing the illegality of an act legitimizes it. As for morals, there's no Morality Enforcement Agency, and that's as it should be.
steele said @ 1:45am GMT on 5th Jan
Ah! Well. Nevertheless,
rylex said @ 11:23pm GMT on 6th Jan
for the record, I do not believe war to be wrong.

only foolish.

Because it makes so much sense wasting lives to make both parties sit down and hammer out agreements 🙄

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR