I've read Chomsky as well. They are both cut from the same left-wing, bomb thrower cloth. America bad, Israel bad. Communists dictatorships, terrorist groups and rogue nations good (really nice guys, but just misunderstood).

However, at least Chomsky exposed the tinfoil hat, 9/11 conspiracy theorists for the crackpots that they are. He gets at least one point for that.

As far as Pilger's VDO goes, what is the big surprise about advertising techniques being used to sell wars? They are used to sell everything in modern life. Why would any thinking person expect otherwise?

The fact that he ignores the reality (at least in the segment that I watched) that human beings have always settled their differences with war and that sometimes they are necessary, is a lot more important that the big shock that human beings are manipulated by the media - very much including him.

It is well known that most Americans wanted to stay out of World War Two, but because of media manipulation and a big mistake by Japan, we ended up helping to win it.

As far as I am concerned, defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was well worth being BSed a little bit by concerned journalists

The problem is that the latest two occupations as well have been sold to the public based on lies, I do not call that "advertising" I would guess at least 70% of people believe all that crap that's being pumped in their brains.

Pilger is asking journalist and news agency's to dig deeper and look at both sides of the story and not function as an echo chamber of government propaganda. It as well means that we all should question the motives of the culprits.

For most that are taking the time to do this, this video contained no new surprises. However when shown to the average braindead Fox, BBC and CNN slaves it might come as a bit of a surprise.

You mention that sometimes wars are needed and give WW2 as an example. I think we all know your position on Iraq and Afghanistan but do you agree that it was a good thing to get the support of the people by telling lies about the reason to start these wars?

Most of the journalist in the VDO think now that if the truth was shown by them, the public most likely would not have been supportive.

You say everything in modern life is sold by advertising techniques but I like to mention that it goes back almost a hundred years when propaganda was renamed into PR (sort of).

Go to YT and search for: "The century of the self"

It is a long sit (about 4 hours I believe) but really after you finished that one you will see the world in a whole different way. Plenty of historical film material in there.

You keep saying leftist bla bla, but what is wrong with questioning certain government policies?

Are you saying you agree and accept every decision the government makes for you?

They used 'propaganda' to sell people on seat belts. I bought it and I am glad. The same with motorcycle helmets. They used propaganda to sell people on the (2nd) war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it was mixed with a fair amount of dishonesty. I didn't buy that one.

They used propaganda to sell the war in Afghanistan. I bought the propaganda, but at that time I wondered how on earth we would ever get out of that place. I still don't know if it's right or wrong. I lean toward maybe necessary, but I am not convinced it will work or how we will get out (at least without our tails between our legs).

Of course if I were an Afghani, I believe I might feel quite different about the whole situation.

They used 'propaganda' to sell people on seat belts. I bought it and I am glad. The same with motorcycle helmets. They used propaganda to sell people on the (2nd) war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it was mixed with a fair amount of dishonesty. I didn't buy that one.

They used propaganda to sell the war in Afghanistan. I bought the propaganda, but at that time I wondered how on earth we would ever get out of that place. I still don't know if it's right or wrong. I lean toward maybe necessary, but I am not convinced it will work or how we will get out (at least without our tails between our legs).

Of course if I were an Afghani, I believe I might feel quite different about the whole situation.

It helps when considering such things to think of "interests" and and not of countries. Certainly the country we once knew of as "America" is only a conduit for "interested parties". These people have no global boundaries. Their God is power and money. They are from many races and countries. Call them oligarchs or plutocrats if you like.

I do not think that any government is completely honest about foreign policy and many times that is for a good reason. I would hesitate to comment on when it is acceptable unless given specific examples.

Questioning "certain government policies" is not the same thing as constant demonizing attacks on relatively benign governments while mostly ignoring much worse abuses by much worse governments and that has been Pilger's pattern for many years. He is not honest and he is not a responsible journalist.

They used propaganda to sell the war in Afghanistan. I bought the propaganda, but at that time I wondered how on earth we would ever get out of that place. I still don't know if it's right or wrong. I lean toward maybe necessary, but I am not convinced it will work or how we will get out (at least without our tails between our legs).

I feel the same way. It was a mistake to do anything other than just get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 - butcher and bolt as the British used to call it - but it is hard to get out honorably at this point.

They used propaganda to sell the war in Afghanistan. I bought the propaganda, but at that time I wondered how on earth we would ever get out of that place. I still don't know if it's right or wrong. I lean toward maybe necessary, but I am not convinced it will work or how we will get out (at least without our tails between our legs).

I feel the same way. It was a mistake to do anything other than just get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 - butcher and bolt as the British used to call it - but it is hard to get out honorably at this point.

Why should we or anyone else care? Just get the fuc_k out!

Why should we or anyone else care? Just get the fuc_k out!

It goes back to the oligarchs or plutocrats you mentioned.

Remember with 700 Million USD being spent daily there are those that benefit from it.

They do not care how many need to die as long as they profit from it.

Nor do they care that they bankrupt America in the process.

"With all the drama around General McChrystal’s resignation, the media missed the real story in the Rolling Stone article"

"We are F'ing losing this thing"

Staff Sgt Kenneth Hicks

"The Entire COIN (Counter Insurgency) Strategy

is a Fraud Perpetuated on the American People"

Douglas Macgregor retired Colonel

"Its not going to look like a win, smell like a win, or taste like a win"

Major General Bill Mayville

Chief of operations for McChrystal

"A Bleeding Ulcer"

General McChrystals description of the Marjah offensive

The biggest military operation of the war

"If Americans Pulled Back & started Paying attention

to this war it would become even less popular"

A Senior advisor to McChrystal

Why should we or anyone else care? Just get the fuc_k out!

It goes back to the oligarchs or plutocrats you mentioned.

Remember with 700 Million USD being spent daily there are those that benefit from it.

They do not care how many need to die as long as they profit from it.

Nor do they care that they bankrupt America in the process.

"With all the drama around General McChrystal’s resignation, the media missed the real story in the Rolling Stone article"

"We are F'ing losing this thing"

Staff Sgt Kenneth Hicks

"The Entire COIN (Counter Insurgency) Strategy

is a Fraud Perpetuated on the American People"

Douglas Macgregor retired Colonel

"Its not going to look like a win, smell like a win, or taste like a win"

Major General Bill Mayville

Chief of operations for McChrystal

"A Bleeding Ulcer"

General McChrystals description of the Marjah offensive

The biggest military operation of the war

"If Americans Pulled Back & started Paying attention

to this war it would become even less popular"

A Senior advisor to McChrystal

I don't think in terms of "winning" or "losing" a war. IMO there is no winnable war these days- anywhere. Wars are fought because there is no other endeavour that can spend so much money so quickly, which of course is the primary aim. I should qualify that to say that was true before therecent "stimulas packages" came into being. Anyhow, I think in terms of lives lost, on both sides and the devolution of what was once a highly principled nation.

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

Anyone who thinks that there are not countries just waiting for the chance to take over other countries today, needs to study a little history. Unfortunately, war is sometimes a necessary evil.

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

Anyone who thinks that there are not countries just waiting for the chance to take over other countries today, needs to study a little history. Unfortunately, war is sometimes a necessary evil.

if there were no intercontinental ballistic missiles in Russia and China the world would have been taken over by The Greatest Nation on Earth™.

I don't think in terms of "winning" or "losing" a war. IMO there is no winnable war these days- anywhere. Wars are fought because there is no other endeavour that can spend so much money so quickly, which of course is the primary aim. I should qualify that to say that was true before therecent "stimulas packages" came into being. Anyhow, I think in terms of lives lost, on both sides and the devolution of what was once a highly principled nation.

I basically see it the same way...I only posted those quotes to show that even

those who are supposedly in it to *win* know it is not winnable. Even they know Counter insurgency is a joke.

That aside yes there is money to be made supplying tools of the trade. At 700 Million USD

a day there are true merchants of war getting rich off of others blood,misery & death.

Those who believe the lie war is a necessary evil probably come from countries that have pretty much always been

in someones house/homeland under the guise of policing action/ counter insurgency/setting up puppet regimes....

all in the name of supposed democracy

I have no problem with homeland defense...But the spinners would like us to believe that we must take the fight to them?

Yet they cannot even pinpoint or define *them* or their crimes. A joke that only the truly blind can see.

More silliness. The USA was the only country on earth with atomic weapons and they did not use them against the Soviet Union when it would have been easy to do so.

What would have happened if Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Mao's China had been in the same position?

More silliness. The USA was the only country on earth with atomic weapons and they did not use them against the Soviet Union when it would have been easy to do so.

What would have happened if Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Mao's China had been in the same position?

the actual cold war started after it was known that the Sowjets had nuclear weapons. then repercussions were feared. McArthur was sacked when he suggested nuclear weapons deployment during the Korean war and Westmoreland would have liked it to but the occupants of the White House were scared shitless as they are now because a shitty nation like North Korea has a fistful of nuclear warheads and Iran is protected by the interests of China and Russia. the hoo-haa of "yewunited Yewrope" seconding Mrs Clinton's threats and the moaning of the 51st state of the U.S. of A. will not prevent that the Mullahs will eventually have nuclear weapons. then, as usually, there will be talk. but talk, the weapon of politicians, is cheap!

a few years ago (when i was still living in The Greatest Nation on Earth™) the warmongers' battle cry was "we'll bomb Iran and North Korea back into stone age, convert their countries into a big flat parking place for Hummers and then the marines will move in and rearrange real estate!" what has happened? nothing at all. not even the simple promise that al-Qaeda and the Taleban will be "smoked out of their caves" was kept. instead of following a steady course the White House is licking the <deleted> of beggar nations, such as India and Pakistan, who cared a shit about non-proliferation and developed nuclear weapons when and as they pleased.

if there were no intercontinental ballistic missiles in Russia and China the world would have been taken over by The Greatest Nation on Earth™.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the point (once again), but the USA did not "take over the world" before other nations had the Bomb when America had the chance. Do you really think that the USSR and Communist China would not have done so if only they had possessed atomic weapons?

John Pilger and his fans never seems to think about that.

Do you think the US would have had enough nuclear weapons to have made a real difference to a war with the Soviets at that stage?

Given that most of their army was spread out over Eastern Europe, and would have immediately invaded the West if the US had attacked I doubt that nukes would have made a great deal of difference.

The US would have to have invaded by conventional means from Eastern Asia which may have stretched their supply lines a little.

All they would have needed was ONE.

I really doubt it, damage and casualties to Soviet cities like Stalingrad, as it was called then, far exceeded that caused by nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A look at losses during WW2 shows the USSR absorbed casualties seemingly effortlessly.

Taking Stalin or the Politburo out may have even helped matters, there was plenty of new blood to replace them.

There was more damage to Japan by fire bombing than from The Bomb, but they still surrendered when they had absolutely no intention of doing so.

No one knew much about atomic weapons then and probably just the threat would have been enough after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually using one A-bomb would probably have been more than enough.

The infrastructure was in place to invade Japan though, I seriously doubt that the victorious generals commanding the millions of Soviet troops in Europe would have laid down their weapons over one nuclear bomb in Moscow even if they had been ordered to do so.

Our leaders like us to see our enemies as cowards but this is seldom the case, cowards don't give their lives for their country if they can avoid it.

I really doubt it, damage and casualties to Soviet cities like Stalingrad, as it was called then, far exceeded that caused by nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A look at losses during WW2 shows the USSR absorbed casualties seemingly effortlessly.

Taking Stalin or the Politburo out may have even helped matters, there was plenty of new blood to replace them.

1. An Atomic Bomb would have a done a lot more than just kill Stalin and the Politburo.

2. Stalingrad lost more lives (as did the battle for Berlin, firebombing Tokyo, etc), but the shock of one city being obliterated in seconds sent a totally different message in those days.

if there were no intercontinental ballistic missiles in Russia and China the world would have been taken over by The Greatest Nation on Earth™.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the point (once again), but the USA did not "take over the world" before other nations had the Bomb when America had the chance. Do you really think that the USSR and Communist China would not have done so if only they had possessed atomic weapons?

John Pilger and his fans never seems to think about that.

you are missing the point. the short time when the U.S. was the only nation which had nuclear weapons coincided with licking wounds, i.e. "taking over the world" was not in the cards. and when it was clear without any doubt that Tovaristch Besarionis Jughashvili (aka Joseph Stalin) had his own plans for this planet and exploded a plutonium bomb in Kazakhstan which had a multiple delivery force of the "toys" used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was too late for any action.

Try looking at it as though a similar attack was made on the US; would the instantaneous loss of hundreds of thousands of American civilians in a nuclear attack make them surrender?

I seriously doubt it, There is little they could lose that couldn't be replaced fairly quickly, from a tactical point of view, and I doubt the Russians would have looked at it any differently.

""There has never been a just war, never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Mark Twain.

So apt for this thread.

Try looking at it as though a similar attack was made on the US; would the instantaneous loss of hundreds of thousands of American civilians in a nuclear attack make them surrender?

I seriously doubt it, There is little they could lose that couldn't be replaced fairly quickly, from a tactical point of view, and I doubt the Russians would have looked at it any differently.

At the dawn of the Atomic Age, no one would have thought this way. They would have panicked. The Japanese were one of the most stubborn military powers of all time and they gave up almost instantly.

As for Mark Twain, if he had been around for World War Two be might have thought very differently.

Try looking at it as though a similar attack was made on the US; would the instantaneous loss of hundreds of thousands of American civilians in a nuclear attack make them surrender?

I seriously doubt it, There is little they could lose that couldn't be replaced fairly quickly, from a tactical point of view, and I doubt the Russians would have looked at it any differently.

At the dawn of the Atomic Age, no one would have thought this way. They would have panicked. The Japanese were one of the most stubborn military powers of all time and they gave up almost instantly.

As for Mark Twain, if he had been around for World War Two be might have thought very differently.

I think you have missed the context of the Twain quote for this thread.

Let me highlight a few phrases....

"The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war..."

"Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity....."

"Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so...."

"And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth..."

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just....."

Sound familiar with today's situation?

Sorry...silly question, considering that you are one of those victims of "conscience-soothing falsities".

As for Mark Twain, if he had been around for World War Two be might have thought very differently.

[sorry...silly question, considering that you are one of those victims of "conscience-soothing falsities".

What do you not understand about not attacking other posters personally in post after post? You are not fooling anyone.

[sorry...silly question, considering that you are one of those victims of "conscience-soothing falsities".

What do you not understand about not attacking other posters personally in post after post? You are not fooling anyone.

???? .

Did you take that as an attack?

"Victim of of "conscience-soothing falsities" " is not an attack. It is a sympathetic reaching-out and plea to try to get you to see the truth.

It IS hard to see one's own faults. Ostrich, head, sand.

[sorry...silly question, considering that you are one of those victims of "conscience-soothing falsities".

What do you not understand about not attacking other posters personally in post after post? You are not fooling anyone.

What do YOU not understand about no personal attacks? Would you like me to list your not-so-subtle attacks?