4 ms·

But no-one believed it. At the time there was a protest of well over 1M people in London against the war. Which is huge, between 1.5% and 3.3% of the entire pop

by willyt 9y ago

But no-one believed it. At the time there was a protest of well over 1M people in London against the war. Which is huge, between 1.5% and 3.3% of the entire population of Britain. My work actually gave us the day off to go to it.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Yes, basically that's what I said. That is, the USA MSM "under-reported" the lack of belief internationally. The American people were sold fiction and they gladly bought it.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  That’s simply not true. There was a huge anti-war response in the U.S. too. The country was very divided on the subject.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Wrong issue. The issue here is the validity of the WMDs. There would be no war debate is that lie was exposed for what it was (i.e., a lie).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- soundwave106 9y ago
  Mmm, there was definitely enough reports in US media that reported on the criticism if you listened hard enough. Linkregister's account was what I remembered. The polling history shows a distinctive minority that opposed the war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_...). I will buy the criticism that some media definitely did stick too obediently to the administration line, the question is how much did media influence opinion? Post-9/11 "feelings" were involved after all. From my viewpoint, Abu Ghraib and the "Mission Accomplished" statement that wasn't, among other things, were needed to change many people's minds.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    > if you listened hard enough _that_ is the key. If The Fourth Estate is doing their job you shouldn't have to turn down the MSM noise to hear The Truth. Facts should be the majority not some passing fringe moment. And don't forget Bush's follow up lie "Mission Accomplished" wasn't scrutinized as it should have been.

by willyt 9y ago

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Yes, basically that's what I said. That is, the USA MSM "under-reported" the lack of belief internationally. The American people were sold fiction and they gladly bought it.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
That’s simply not true. There was a huge anti-war response in the U.S. too. The country was very divided on the subject.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Wrong issue. The issue here is the validity of the WMDs. There would be no war debate is that lie was exposed for what it was (i.e., a lie).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
soundwave106 9y ago
Mmm, there was definitely enough reports in US media that reported on the criticism if you listened hard enough. Linkregister's account was what I remembered. The polling history shows a distinctive minority that opposed the war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_...). I will buy the criticism that some media definitely did stick too obediently to the administration line, the question is how much did media influence opinion? Post-9/11 "feelings" were involved after all. From my viewpoint, Abu Ghraib and the "Mission Accomplished" statement that wasn't, among other things, were needed to change many people's minds.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  > if you listened hard enough _that_ is the key. If The Fourth Estate is doing their job you shouldn't have to turn down the MSM noise to hear The Truth. Facts should be the majority not some passing fringe moment. And don't forget Bush's follow up lie "Mission Accomplished" wasn't scrutinized as it should have been.