Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 6914/7006
(11-Jan-2012 at 16:47)


Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Looking at the latest round of bullshit about Iran, Hilary Clinton has made herself look stupid.

"There is no plausible justification for this production. Such enrichment brings Iran a significant step closer to having the capability to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium."

There is not a single word of that comment that is true.

There is a plausible justification - they are enriching to 20% to use the stuff as fuel in a (US supplied...) reactor producing isotopes for medical use. It does not bring Iran "...a significant step closer to having the capability to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium" at all. 20% is not low enriched, not highly enriched, and a long way short of the minimum of 95% enriched needed for a weapon.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that the IAEA know all about this facility and are free to inspect it. It is even monitored by TV.

If Clinton isn't inaccurate enough, the rabid right are going to extremes. Look at what that idiot Mitt Romney is saying.

"Iran is making rapid headway toward its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons."
"we're hurtling toward a major crisis involving nuclear weapons"
"Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power."

As so often with Republicans, this is a completely contradicted by science. Perhaps somebody should explain to them that making a bomb from 20% LEU is a scientific impossibility...

And his 'policy' based on this contradiction of the laws of physics?
"I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option."
"I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region. These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons."

God help us all if one of these nutters becomes president... that is far more dangerous than anything Iran could do.


The real laugh is that now even China is more honest, accurate, and reliable than the US. From the Peoples Daily:

'Iran's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali-Asghar Soltanieh said all of the country's nuclear activities, including those at Fordo enrichment site, are under the supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog, the local satellite Press TV reported on Tuesday.

Since two years ago, the agency is continuously monitoring all the activities in Fordo, Soltanieh told Press TV on Monday.

Soltanieh said that the Islamic Republic needs the 20-percent enriched uranium, to be produced in Fordo, for the production of nuclear fuel plates required at the Tehran Research Reactor for producing radioisotopes for cancer treatment.'

The question... should public statements by political figures that are blatantly untrue be made illegal? Or does 'freedom of speech' include a freedom for political parties to deceive the US public?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1529/1637
(12-Jan-2012 at 01:55)
You question is a moral one and the answer is self-evident. In demonstrable opposition, the mentality of U.S. strategists nowadays is to create their own reality towards their own ends, irrespective of what is moral. Iraq, 9/11 and now Iran, it's all total manufactured. But here's the punchline: it's only untrue if you are intelligent to see that it is untrue. And then if you know it is untrue and want to counter that injustice in any meaningful way, you have to deal with the defamation squads, the clean up crews and the psy-warriors who vehemently defend their investments in the web of power. Most of the public are borderline retarded and it takes a great deal of intelligent, well-directed personal investment to get a vivid picture of things over the chaos-magicians. You're right, it's an outrage, but isn't it just the way things have always been?
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6916/7006
(12-Jan-2012 at 06:44)


No, it is not a moral one. It is a regulatory one. Politicians are in the game of swaying public opinion. So are advertisers, marketers, and PR people. They are all regulated (at least in Europe) so that their claims can be verified from a credible

What I am asking is why US politicians can get away with spouting such crap when it has no support at all.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3281/3399
Donated $25.30
(12-Jan-2012 at 07:38)


Re: Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
What I am asking is why US politicians can get away with spouting such crap when it has no support at all.
Its not just US politicians ... or really politicians exclusively
People will say and do whatever they have to to get ahead


Quote:
The question... should public statements by political figures that are blatantly untrue be made illegal?
No.
Freedom of speech protects them in this regard.
However ...

Quote:
Or does 'freedom of speech' include a freedom for political parties to deceive the US public?
No, in fact with most cases its illegal, depending on circumstance, for political parties to outright lie to further their agenda(depending on exactly what that agenda is and what, or whom, it affects).
The problem is that anything that can be considered illegal by law wont come of anything. The people with the power to do something tend to be the ones doing the illegal thing in the first place.

Quote:
What I am asking is why US politicians can get away with spouting such crap when it has no support at all.
Because people are either too stupid to know the truth, too trusting to question the word, or too poor to do anything about it.

Those with power, money, or fame will do everything they can to keep what they have.
Welcome to the world

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
R.I.P. InJustice!
Hit me up on Facebook

EWE-tah
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6917/7006
(12-Jan-2012 at 09:06)


Quote:
Its not just US politicians ... or really politicians exclusively
People will say and do whatever they have to to get ahead
A bit beside the point. Nobody is bothered what some guy in the office says. The issue here is what people say in the public arena.


Quote:
Freedom of speech protects them in this regard.
Quote:
The problem is that anything that can be considered illegal by law wont come of anything. The people with the power to do something tend to be the ones doing the illegal thing in the first place.
I know that is how it is. The question is wether that is how it should be. Foreign policy based on lies and bullshit is surely a bigger issue than a dodgy advertisement, yet the advertisement is regulated but politicians are not.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1530/1637
(13-Jan-2012 at 02:51)
Re: Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
What I am asking is why US politicians can get away with spouting such crap when it has no support at all.
That's not how it works. Since Bush especially, it was established in the poltical game, in Amercia, that you don't need support from the public. You make up reasons - realities - in which the public is already positioned in a way that suits you, and then use your funding and power to pursue that reality.

People buy that shit. It's business as usual. It's the kind of crap you see mroe overtly nationalism and dictatorships. Just lie, and if its big and grand enough, people will lap it up, since its the production and scale of the thing that convinces people, not the substance. People assume that saturation equals truth, it just has to be true etc.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 13-Jan-2012 at 02:58.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1531/1637
(13-Jan-2012 at 03:08)
Everyone likes the idea of more/better regulation, but it doesn't work. The regulators become the dishonest ones and we're back to square one. Then you need regulators for the regulators ad nauseum.

I have just come accept that this is how the world works. I don't have an illusions about correcting it. I just trying to use it to my advantage, like everyone else. Success is its own curse, as they say.

If i wanted to dismantle the current system, I have to substitute it, in my mind, with another one. That invariable involves elevating a new standard, that begin a new cycle of corruption.

I think the only way to live honestly is to work on the outskirts, under the nose, in the river of fish, and never assert any system to a level of supremacy, if it does gather momentum on its own accord, abandon it, and start again. Thats the pure and honest way. BUT THATS ABSURD. That's anarchism. And you cant get anywhere with that.

Hence, the predicament.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 231/246
(13-Jan-2012 at 05:22)


Let's be honest there is a lot of money spent in war and there are very large companies that profit from it. The USA needs to get out of wars and cut back on the military significantly. That would go a long way for a balanced budget.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#8  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6918/7006
(13-Jan-2012 at 12:15)


Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:
Since Bush especially, it was established in the poltical game, in Amercia, that you don't need support from the public. You make up reasons - realities - in which the public is already positioned in a way that suits you, and then use your funding and power to pursue that reality.
For the second time... "I know that is how it is. The question is wether that is how it should be. Foreign policy based on lies and bullshit is surely a bigger issue than a dodgy advertisement, yet the advertisement is regulated but politicians are not."

To make it abundantly clear before somebody else posts in the same vein... I do not accept the real politik "that is way the world works - get real" argument. It is a fallacy that things cannot change. If that argument were true, the USA wouldn't even exist.


Quote:
Everyone likes the idea of more/better regulation, but it doesn't work.
It works very well in publishing, marketing, advertising, and - in many countries - in politics.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3972/3983
(13-Jan-2012 at 21:53)


Re: Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
To make it abundantly clear before somebody else posts in the same vein... I do not accept the real politik "that is way the world works - get real" argument. It is a fallacy that things cannot change. If that argument were true, the USA wouldn't even exist.
Things change because the people see a reason to change them. Politicians gain more power having enemies lurking in the shadows and the citizens have been conditioned to accept claims the enemy is there, and they are in danger.

Quote:
What I am asking is why US politicians can get away with spouting such crap when it has no support at all.
Some lies can be debated as to whether false, while remaining incorrect in context: for instance your argument here can be disputed;
"20% is not low enriched, not highly enriched, and a long way short of the minimum of 95% enriched needed for a weapon."

I don't dispute your accuracy, but the argument can be 20% isotope inside a container which explodes will release a radioactive cloud that could be quite harmful to nearby citizens over the next few years. Organizations have criticised US use of depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq because of the health effects on residents, so there could be a kernel of truth here, while the actual statement appears to us as false.


Quote:
It works very well in publishing, marketing, advertising, and - in many countries - in politics.
Unfortunately the politicians, the bloggers, and the media that spread these inaccuracies have realised the internet never forgets and despite regulations and laws, once a thing has been posted on the internet, it is very hard to get it or the message, updated to factual information. Much of the news is posted to the internet, and while many media outlets provide news updates, some do not.

While fines would provide some measure of satisfaction, there are lies that would be hard to prove in court, especially against experienced and well funded legal experts. Regulation of senior politicians, especially with growing security measures and power, would be nearly impossible, and they always have conspiracies, or rightwing, or liberal, media to blame for exposing the lies.

Quote:
Let's be honest there is a lot of money spent in war and there are very large companies that profit from it. The USA needs to get out of wars and cut back on the military significantly. That would go a long way for a balanced budget.
I think the war industry in the US is so huge that they can't simply walk away from it. It is not just manufacturing of weapons, although the profit factor is a huge incentive to drive aggression, but also social, educational, and entertainment ties to war and destruction would have to be addressed to make the populace more willing to accept the change.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6921/7006
(14-Jan-2012 at 12:25)


Quote:
Things change because the people see a reason to change them.
Usually, things change because governments change them.


Quote:
Politicians gain more power having enemies lurking in the shadows and the citizens have been conditioned to accept claims the enemy is there, and they are in danger.
Yes... scaremongering is the favoured tactic of the right, because it keys into their nationalism. Creating an 'us and them' mindset kills two birds with one stone, with the added benefit of allowing them to posture as 'patriotic'.


Quote:
the argument can be 20% isotope inside a container which explodes will release a radioactive cloud that could be quite harmful to nearby citizens over the next few years.
Maybe, but that is still not HEU or weapons grade (Clinton) or a nuclear weapon (bunch of Republicans).


Quote:
Unfortunately the politicians, the bloggers, and the media that spread these inaccuracies have realised the internet never forgets and despite regulations and laws, once a thing has been posted on the internet, it is very hard to get it or the message, updated to factual information. Much of the news is posted to the internet, and while many media outlets provide news updates, some do not.
I agree with that. The internet has become a cesspit of crap, full of stuff that simply wouldn't be published in any other form because it is so inaccurate.

While my inclinations are against letting anyone control information, I think the internet badly needs some gatekeepers. The UN would be my choice.


Quote:
While fines would provide some measure of satisfaction, there are lies that would be hard to prove in court, especially against experienced and well funded legal experts. Regulation of senior politicians, especially with growing security measures and power, would be nearly impossible, and they always have conspiracies, or rightwing, or liberal, media to blame for exposing the lies.
All problems that the print media deals with as a matter of routine.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1533/1637
(14-Jan-2012 at 14:18)
Re: Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I do not accept the real politik "that is way the world works - get real" argument.
Then run free, my pretty.


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I think the internet badly needs some gatekeepers. The UN would be my choice.
Tell me more.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 235/246
(14-Jan-2012 at 16:05)


The UN as gatekeepers would be a disaster. It is a toothless organization that bickers and little else.

The internet should be open and without restrictions imposed by governments except for the protection of children. If schools, businesses, and individuals want to restrict themselves that is fine. False claims can get a person in trouble as there are laws about writing lies regardless of media outlet.

If we appoint a government to be a "gatekeeper" we are inviting a lot of censorship.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#13  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6922/7006
(14-Jan-2012 at 16:20)


The UN is designed to bicker and little else. It is not a world government and it is not a war machine. You do know that the Internet is international; that other countries have it too?

There are no laws against lying on the internet other than libel.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3973/3983
(15-Jan-2012 at 17:39)


Re: Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
The UN is designed to bicker and little else. It is not a world government and it is not a war machine. You do know that the Internet is international; that other countries have it too?
My belief is that if you restrict access to the lies that are being told, you will also lose access the truth in some cases.

Quote:
There are no laws against lying on the internet other than libel.
I am a little unclear what laws govern the print media from spreading lies and half truths when it comes to quoting a person in the news.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6926/7006
(16-Jan-2012 at 12:37)


Quote:
My belief is that if you restrict access to the lies that are being told, you will also lose access the truth in some cases.
I am not suggesting restricting access to lies. i am suggesting that they shouldn't be made public in the first place. This is a quality-of-information issue, and I find it ridiculous that 'freedom of speech' has been perverted into 'freedom to lie'.


Quote:
I am a little unclear what laws govern the print media from spreading lies and half truths when it comes to quoting a person in the news.
Basically, if you say "X said/did Y", then it must be true. This is pretty much universal.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3974/3983
(16-Jan-2012 at 18:29)


Re: Lies and Propaganda in the USA

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I am not suggesting restricting access to lies. i am suggesting that they shouldn't be made public in the first place. This is a quality-of-information issue, and I find it ridiculous that 'freedom of speech' has been perverted into 'freedom to lie'.
The problem is that it is not a quality of information issue unless you are discussing news centers and sites that are supposed to inform, and not opinionate.

People on the street can say anything they want as long as it does not cross the lines into being illegal. People can write books and reports that have no reality or logic behind them, as long as they can pay to have the book published and do not break the law. Citizen bloggers on the internet, are similar to those who publish their own books in print media, they are a small and fractional part of the problem in keeping the internet, or the print media, honest.

Most bloggers do use news sources for the base of their opinions, however they quote mine and misinterpret much of what is reported to support their beliefs. I do not think that realistically any blog will have the power of the Guardian, or Fox News, or CNN or BBC etc.

I am not sure, but I was led to believe that news media can quote people as long as the quote is an actual quote. Where we are seeing a problem is the news media not providing honest commentary on these quotes they publish. In this case I would hope that the media itself would create guidelines to govern themselves rather than being restricted by any form of government, or institutional control.


Quote:
Basically, if you say "X said/did Y", then it must be true. This is pretty much universal.
Yes, but does it have to be true for the person the news media is quoting? It would be nice if there was a fact based commentary after news items, but with the desire for greater profits, and the apparent downturn in newspaper sales, I do not expect anything to change.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2843/2860
(16-Jan-2012 at 23:28)


This thread is a great parody of itself. A thread that decries lies and manipulation, while the premise is a lie.

First we have:

Quote:
20% is not low enriched, not highly enriched, and a long way short of the minimum of 95% enriched needed for a weapon.
Quote:
If Clinton isn't inaccurate enough, the rabid right are going to extremes. Look at what that idiot Mitt Romney is saying.
Quote:
As so often with Republicans, this is a completely contradicted by science. Perhaps somebody should explain to them that making a bomb from 20% LEU is a scientific impossibility...
Rabid ranting against one of 3 possible targets.



Then we have Science.


Quote:
Uranium-235 enriched to >20 wt % 235U is considered directly usable for the manufacture of weapons.


Domestic and international safeguards recognize that high-enriched uranium (HEU) containing A20 wt % uranium-235 (235U) can be used to build nuclear weapons, but that low-enriched uranium (LEU)—a mixture of 235U and 238U—can not be used practicably to build nuclear weapons. Because of this difference, the respective safeguards and security requirements for HEU and LEU are substantially different.


More Science.

IAEA Science.
Quote:
Uranium with an assay of 235U equal to or more than 20% is called high enriched uranium (HEU).
Most of you bought it and went on a diatribe of how terrible misinformation is and all without a hint of irony.

This is why you have free speech. Regardless of how right you think you are, you might not be. That's why you aren't allowed to silence opinions or statements you don't like.

Thread implodes in 3....2....1....

Mars II - American Scientist
PhD - Physical Chemistry

Last edited by Mars II, 16-Jan-2012 at 23:29.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1539/1637
(17-Jan-2012 at 03:13)
Yes and no.

Every nuclear reacter is a potential source of material for weapons. The question is if there is any evidence that Iran are using their plutonium in weapons?

*crickets*
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6927/7006
(17-Jan-2012 at 11:57)


So... the fake scientist blunders in, goes to Wikipedia, follows a few links, and thinks it makes him look clever. Wrong!

"Uranium-235 enriched to >20 wt % 235U is considered directly usable for the manufacture of weapons." etc.

Oh look - Mars has just discovered 'weapons usable'. Well done!

First, learn what that little '>' means. It means 'greater than'. Is the 19.75% enrichment in Iran 'greater than' 20%?


Now that that one is revealed for the nonsense it is... 20% and over is classed as 'weapons usable', because it is theoretically possible to assemble a critical mass. The resulting bomb is very inefficient, too big to be practical as a weapon, and in reality such a bomb has never been constructed. From Mars' Wikipedia page: "The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade"; and from his IAEA link: "weapons-grade uranium has 235U assays over 90%"

The real joke here is that the sentence following the one posted is: "Uranium-235 with enrichments between 10 and 20 wt % are not weapons-usable, but could be converted to weapons-usable materials with a relatively small uranium-enrichment plant."

I wonder why that was edited out? Because the 19.75% enrichment in Iran is between 10% and 20%, not weapons usable, not HEU, and not even close to weapons grade, exactly as I said?

Mars implodes in 3....2....1

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iran: Nukes or Not? Michael1 Respectable General Discussions 408 02-Jun-2006 17:25
War on terror 'vanishes from agenda' Aussie Girl Respectable General Discussions 120 16-Dec-2004 14:50
"Propaganda" Nazka Respectable General Discussions 42 26-Jul-2003 18:30
kill Sadam Popeye B Respectable General Discussions 22 15-Feb-2003 10:27
New Osama Tape DavidFF7 Respectable General Discussions 28 14-Feb-2003 16:46


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 01:20.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.