Office of Strategic Influence (Office of Propaganda)

hey...i never said ashcroft was a fascist!! i was on your side in that debate!!!

the problem here is that I've seen too many times where if the government is given an inch, they'll take a mile. i've seen this particularly with constitutional interpretation (like the commerce clause)...but i think it applies here, too.

liberals -- please don't argue with me on the commerce clause at this point...i'm on YOUR side in this debate!

 

I agree with Freak, they do it domestically, why not let them do it internationally?

Of course this has been going on for a while (the exportation of pro-US prop, based on truth, half-truths, and misinformation).

I just find it odd that they have to make it "official." Maybe some people just wanted a label/title that they could put on a business card, instead of just "governent worker" or "the man," etc.

 

Freak:

Good point. I didn't even catch that...

Major:

Well, vote your Congressman out, too. Because I guarantee that he/she approved spending for it.

You are operating under the assumption that it will be abused. I am operating under the assumption that it could be abused, but likely will not be. Your assumption is paranoid.

I am refering to your assumption that the "nature of the project" will be dissemination of lies. Do you deny that this is an assumption of yours?

I don't think you understand how oversight committees work. A Congressman asks a question, and the agency head/employee answers the damn question. It is not optional - even sensitive material cannot be witheld.

Because we do not know whether or not it will need to be used. In all likelihood, it won't. But it might, and if it does then you want the government to be able to do it. You authorize government to have a power before it has to use that power, not when it needs it. You err on the side of caution in wartime.

glynch:

I'd say those who oppose this have seen too many Oliver Stone movies.

Ahh, there's your assumption that everything that comes from the government (military in particular) is a lie. Why does everyone here simply assume that this organization is going to be spitting out lies right and left? No one has addressed that yet.

We have no credibility as it is. The primary goal of this organization is apparently to fix thtat situation. Voice of America ain't enough.

I think you have that position because you spend all day at Antiwar.com and RedRevolution.org (if it exists)...

You mean the brand of consistently dishonest and fact-ignoring journalism you are always bringing us? The kind that ignores the fact that the Israeli reservist situation is really an issue of 150 or so against 400,000? And that type of journalism that tries to paint the pacifist movement as a broad-based popular movement, while ignoring what Gallup has to say about it?

Most of the rest of the world has already been inundated with the lies you so often love to bring us here. I am willing to bet that they will get more truth if we actively try to combat your brand of propaganda.

[/QUOTE]To change these opinions, which like it or not does lead to terrorism on Americans, will require a lengthy history of truth telling and good deeds, not just military might and propaganda.[/QUOTE]

I agree. It will require far more detailed accounts of actual history and current events than I am willing to devote myself to giving to combat your arguments. But the sooner people start getting actual truth, and not the type of garbage conspiracy theories people like you are always bandying about, the better.

 

A big thank you to TheFreak who, like so many others on this board, have reminded us that those who may disagree at times with U.S. policy are un-American.

 

Man, RM95, for someone who complains about smilies, you sure do have trouble getting jokes when they're not used:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29210

 

MadMax:

Hey, if they take a mile this time, then I'm with you guys.

If there is no oversight of this office, then I don't want it to exist. I am pretty sure there will have to be oversight.

If they actually do start throwing lies around right and left, then I don't want it to exist. I see no good reason for them to do so, however, since truth actually is on our side. I have yet to hear a good hypothetical example from anyone, even though I have asked for one a couple of times.

If it actually does these things, then you are certainly correct. But if it does not, as I feel it wouldn't... Then it is exactly what the doctor ordered. The perceptions others in the world have of us are extremely negative and must be changed. If we don't start actively trying to change those perceptions, then we can expect to be under attack indefinitely.

I find it odd (and quite ironic) that the exact same people who consistently argue that we need to focus on foreign perceptions are now arguing against an effort to do so. Exactly what do you guys expect us to do?

If you have an alternative - and don't throw "we need to change our foreign policy" at me, that is garbage - then speak.

 

Right, you didn't mean it that way.

The difference is that mine was obviously a jab, your's comes right after your criticism of our criticism, and finish off with the same old tired line I've read on this board since September 11th. Too many people aren't joking when they say that...sorry if I didn't get your's.

 

Okay, now I simply don't know what you're talking about.

The "Pro-US" thing was taken directly from another thread title, and meant to be a joke.

The "anti-US nugget" thing was not a joke, but a comment on how every foreign policy thread inevitably becomes an attack on US actions. I believe HayesStreet talked about it as well in the thread I referenced.

On your comment "mine was obviously a jab", I'm completely clueless.

I hope you're as sensitive on the basketball court as you are in the BBS. It'll make it funner when I beat your ass to see you cry.

 

OK, that's what I get for not clicking on your thread, I just assumed it was the thread where Kagy didn't get what I was referring to when I was making a good natured jab at those who say that liberals are too quick to label people racist.

I knew what you meant when you said "Pro-US" posters, I knew you were referring to the link you eventually posted. My initial response was to your "anti-US" comment which I took to mean that if you're criticizing this, you're anti-US.

Regardless, you'll be the one crying when I muster my 23 seconds of energy into ramming your ass in the ground with my enormous beer belly.

 

Just tell the ****ing truth. You do not fight fire with fire, you fight it with water, likewise, you fight lies with the truth. The truth is on our side, use it.

One lie that gets caught(and it will, I guarantee it, tis in the cards ) demolishes any influence the truth will have coming from this office.

I don't have the problem with getting the truth out, the truth supports us! I have a problem with lying like that. Its not necessary, and it will cause more problems that it solves.

 

I think most people are afraid of the potential of this. But right now, we don't know what the intent and possibilities are. All the discussion is great, but all we are doing is speaking in hypotheticals. Some people are more optimistic than others. That is what I see as the real difference.

I don't think it's all bad. I think it could be potentially dangerous and if I (a moron to most of you) can see that, I'm sure the government does as well. I really don't think our government wants to have absolute control over everything.

I think it would be nice if we could give our government the benefit of the doubt (but I do understand your analogy Major). We are the leader for a reason. All the people in government cannot be self-serving, power-driven idiots.

 

Puedlfor:

This is precisely why I am not worried about it. I fail to see a need for it... You guys are just overreacting, and appear to have missed the meaning of "possibly".

 

Would you drink water from a stream which is "1%" pollluted? It's the exact same thing. Once you don't know what is true and what isn't...how do you know which news to believe and what not to?

 

Does it matter? Do they believe the truth when we give it to them?

I think it's ironic that Saddam wants us to trust that he doesn't have WMD even though he won't let inspectors in, but no one in the world wants to believe us.

They already don't trust us. And like treeman said, no one said we're using this strategy and no one said we ever will. Everyone is speculating. We haven't even done it yet. Stop overreacting.

(and if you're living in Houston, you'd be lucky if the water was THAT clean-j/k)

 

boy:

Yes. I do it every day. So do you, unless you survive entirely upon bottled springwater.

This coming from someone who actually believes the Palestinian press? Someone who believes in Hamas's cause? Please. You are hopelessly biased - nothing will ever change your mind.

This is for those who are not 100% hopelessly and irrevocably biased against the US. And those who don't support the terrorists... Kinda leaves you out of the equation.

 

Treeman, you still fail to explain away the obvious problem with the plan, that once your credibility is shot because you lie, than whatever you say including the truth s not believed.

Being tone deaf to credibility issues may explain why you don't understand how your constant name calling (communist, moron, conspiracy theorist etc) when posting destroys your own credibility for what are basically pretty main stream Republican views.

By the way I'm going to check out anti-war.com. I've never seen it. Thanks for the headsup.

 

they already do not believe the truth

 

glynch:

We have no credibility right now, thanks to dumbasses like you who are constantly 1) telling lies and distributing incorrect "facts", and 2) constantly carrying an anti-US line. You should work for a Saudi or Egyptian newspaper - you could edit one.

And you are still assuming that we are going to be throwing lies around - you do not even consider the possibility that we'll actually tell the truth. You are so far gone in your conspiracy theories that there's simply no hope in ever changing your mind. (You'll have lotsa fun at Antiwar.com )

If we are constantly telling lies, as you assume, then no one will have any reason at all to believe us. But if we tell the verifiable truth - and as much as you dismiss that as even a possibility, it is the greatest likelihood, as the truth is on our side - then eventually some people might believe us.

As it is now, they simply are not hearing our viewpoints on anything. All they are hearing right now is the type of garbage that you are constantly spewing. Is it any wonder why they hate us???

And is it any wonder that you don't want them to hear our viewpoints? I should expect that from you, since it runs counter to our interests for us to refrain from actually expressing them. And if something is in our interests to do, then you are automatically opposed to it... You'd much rather we kept quiet, and kept the war going long enough for you to see your Vietnam-style defeat...

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

Just out of curiosity, how is that ironic?

 

Sadam is a meglomaniac. He is evil. He has done nothing but lie and hide things and we're supposed to trust him.

However, the US, who stands for freedom and democracy and who has come to the aid of almost anyone who asks for it, is not trusted.