8 ms·

Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and gove

by spodek 13y ago

Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did. I keep slipping back into believing the United States government believes in honesty and transparency, at least relatively more than other governments. In some areas it might, but not on major issues like war. It's painful to watch a government that instituted the Marshall Plan actively destroy its credibility like this. Or to think of the consequences. Or to see them play out.

rdtsc 13y ago
I grew up in the 80s in the Soviet Union. And the thing is, we never believed their propaganda because it was too ridiculous. Everyone was laughing at the bullshit they heard on the radio and TV. True believers have disappeared probably the the mid 60s or so. Even defecting spies had stopped using "ideology" as the reason for their defection it was too unbelievable. Likewise might happen in US. It seems two things has happened already. They stretched propaganda vs reality difference too thin. And the Internet. It becomes harder to keep a straight face telling others about freedom, privacy, free market, human rights in light of news about torture, drones, spying etc. Also, without an ability to get access to alternative media and if Fox was the only channel available many would still thing this country was God's gift to humanity. It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. On another note. There was an old joke from back in the 90's. "When Soviet Union fell, we found out everything they told us about Communism was a lie. And everything they told us about America was true". Good counter-propaganda after all, is often not telling lies just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. In other words I doubt the Marshall Plan America is a good ol America or is it the America that still believed in segregation, raping South American countries for profit, installing brutal dictators in South East Asia and so on.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Good counter-propaganda after all is often not telling lies, just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. That's very well put.
- jakejake 13y ago
  That's really interesting to hear the "other side" as it were. I think the US mentality is to simply not tell you anything about the other county so that you don't develop any sort of personal feelings. I was a child during the cold war, but I actually could not tell you one thing about any Russian person that I was told during that time, aside from the "evil" leaders hated our way of life and how they desperately wanted to destroy us. Unfortunately I think that still works - it's still not that unusual to hear about how terrorist hate our freedom, want to take away our freedom, etc. If you have any interesting in understanding why such thing may be true - you have to go out of your way to find news about it.
  - vastinfest 13y ago
    I think it's just easier to paint yourself as good guys when you can leverage "us" vs "them" mentality. During cold war that was USA vs USSR, now its USA vs terrorists. Real beuty of that is that it works from boths sides - USA hated commies from USSR, USSR hated evil capitalists from USA. Now same thinking can be applied to both USA and terrorists (when you think about it - USA has invaded couple countries and is actively bulying rest of the world into shape). During cold war there was USSR to keep USA in check so to say. Now there's USA and some people without any real resources behind them fighting out of idea. Even sadder thing - both sides have people who believe all that "we" are good guys are absolutely true. I was born in USSR couple of years before collapse (I don't remember anything solid myself), but to this day my parents say that "then" things were better, everybody had jobs, everybody was happy (partly because vodka was water cheap, partly because nobody told anybody what really happened in places where happened things like biological or nuclear weapons manufacture). I can guarrantee you same exact things happened over in the USA. When I say "happened" i really mean "happens".. I can't currently decide who next will stomp over my country..
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I was a child during the cold war, but I actually could not tell you one thing about any Russian person that I was told during that time, I still remember Sting's song Russians with the rhetorical lyric, "Do the Russians Love their Children Too?" Which is kind of the opposite of your point, since it wasn't Big Evil propaganda.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. Why does everyone blame the evil MSM? Fox News was started because the MSM was 'too liberal'. I mean, I sort of agree with your overall point, but if you want to see what 'domestic terrorists' could do before the Internet then you need not look any further than Weather Underground (70s-80s) or the various radical right-wing organizations that hit their peak in the 90s with the Oklahoma City bombing. You know what killed Occupy? Occupy! No goal, no purpose, just "we hate the bankers and we hate the gub'mint!". Well, take a number, guys, you can get in line with practically the whole rest of the country. But don't try to pin that on suppression of alternative media. Alternative media is out there, and it's been out there. The technology used to spread the message has changed, but the message has always been available. It's just that no one actually cares.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    > You know what killed Occupy? Occupy! No goal, no purpose, just "we hate the bankers and we hate the gub'mint!". Well, take a number, guys, you can get in line with practically the whole rest of the country. I never argued for supporting Occupy. The problems isn't about occupy, the problem is that FBI and their corporate partners thought they are dangerous enough to label them as "domestic terrorists". Think about it. A bunch of people without a goal, disorganized, non-violent, and they bothered to label them as terrorist. Good Lord. What if they were more organized. What would those watching them be doing? Assassinating them with drones. > The technology used to spread the message has changed, but the message has always been available. It's just that no one actually cares. It is a mater of degrees. There used to be zines and meetings and what not. Getting a hold of a publisher, printing on dead trees, distributed that is a lot of effort than just posting a blog. So saying alternative media was there and it is there now. Is true. But it was never in the same quantity and availability. The latency was much higher as well. There aren't dark and white colors only. Only radicals vs authoritarians. People are on the continuum and drift across it. Availability of information is that makes that easier. One can become more informed or go further into conspiracy theory fantasy world. But overall it is a very positive development. > Why does everyone blame the evil MSM? Fox News was started because the MSM was 'too liberal'. There is nothing to blame there. They are simply following their incentives. Fox News, MSM and all others are large corporations in the business to make money (largely from advertising). They are not in the business of informing the public. They would operate according to basic incentives. This is very well described and researched in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent work. The work is not new but it is still very valuable to read and very actual.
potatolicious 13y ago
Not only is it painful to watch this, it's even more painful to think about how far we've fallen, and how quickly. It wasn't that long ago where most mainstream US media sources could be trusted to provide insightful, fact-checked journalism.
- clicks 13y ago
  And yet I still think the reason it happened was not because of gov't intricately and carefully orchestrating things with great forethought, it happened because media corporations went after easy profit and found out that pandering to the religious right was an easy and worthwhile thing to do to bring in the money. Of course it isn't as if gov't isn't in on it, it is -- but not it ways that people think. They're doing it more subtly: "The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’ but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations." http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the-deep-politics-of-hollywood/11921 http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the... http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propaganda-and-censorship-the-hollywood-industrial-complex/ http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propag...
- vacri 13y ago
  The internet killed fact-checkers. In order to beat the 24-hour news cycle, reports have to be done asap, and fact-checking just gets in the way. Removing fact-checking is just a risk management strategy, methinks, as sure you'll lose out from time to time, but overall you'll be so much faster!. I lament the loss of fact-checking, and it pains me to see errors in professional services that should be picked up be even first-year tertiary students.
  - mattm 13y ago
    No, it's because the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine [1] which lead to the rise of biased "news" channels in order to gain viewers. The Harper government in Canada recently eliminated Canada's version of this and I shudder what to think will happen 10-20 years down the line. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
stefantalpalaru 13y ago
The Marshall Plan came at a cost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
CoffeeDregs 13y ago
Agreed. For me, the most depressing part is that I, as a Republican [not a retard "movement" conservative, but a non-Progressive [yes, I believe in Climate Change]], voted for Obama and his message of transparency. I shouldn't have "believed" in a politician, but I did. Crazy time: liberal friends are now defending the NSA's actions... Cats and dogs are living together in peace. WTF?
- coldtea 13y ago
  Well, it was not like Republican and Democrat parties were really apart in the first place. One is left of centre, the other is right of centre. The both agree on the centre. They have some token issues to ramp up their followers (gay marriage on one side, religion on the other, etc), but no matter who is in power the country works more or less the same for 90% of issues. Does anyone feel like a huge change is happening in his everyday life and the workings of the country, when the other party comes into power after some time?
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    One is right of center, the other is even more right of center, if you consider parties in other countries.
    - andybak 13y ago
      Yep. Brit here. We tend to laugh when we hear the Democrats described as 'Center-left'.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        Actually that's true. I just used the terms they are described with in their local political scene. Compared to our parties, both are on the right. And it's a shame that the democratic party, from what I've read, has gotten even more on the right as times move along, even being bullish against the sixties spirit etc. From this book (which is half light pop culture references and half decent period analysis) I've come to the conclusion that this happened in the eighties: http://www.amazon.com/Back-Our-Future-Now-Our-Everything/product-reviews/0345518780 http://www.amazon.com/Back-Our-Future-Now-Our-Everything/pro...
falk 13y ago
"By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did." "I keep slipping back into believing the United States government believes in honesty and transparency..." The U.S. government never believed in honesty and transparency and you're lying to yourself thinking that they did. Our press has constantly manipulated us. Lies and secrets are just getting easier to expose. I suggest you read the following: - A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present by Howard Zinn - Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
- newnewnew 13y ago
  Or for the far right-wing version: A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-...) Part 2 is where he examines the myths surrounding the Revolutionary War, and it is very good (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_15.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-...)
coldtea 13y ago
>Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did. Well, it lied alright and on a huge scale. The establishment dropped a-bombs on civillians with BS pretexes (one can still find them on party line history books, from where lots of people get their official version of wisdom), invaded tons of countries in the name of "democracy" (that is, resources and influence), from Vietnam to Panama, established dictatorships (e.g the toppling of Iran's legitimate government back in the fifties), persecuted people in the McCarthy era, stomped on the blacks and civil rights movement, etc. The difference with the USSR is that it wasn't totalitarian inside the country. USSR was like 1984, US was like Brave New World. >It's painful to watch a government that instituted the Marshall Plan actively destroy its credibility like this Well, the Marshall Plan was (among other stated goals) a way to extract influence upon the broken Europe, pay the right people at the right places, and ascert the top dog position.
rayiner 13y ago
I don't remember anyone denying that drone strikes result in civilian causalities. But guess what we did before we had drone strikes? We did cruise missile attacks, targeted bombings, arming of rebels, and often full scale proxy wars. Drone strikes kill a lot fewer civilians than the alternatives we used during the Cold War.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Yes. I'm uneasy about drone strikes, but they're a lot better than cluster bombs, which not only kill people during the bombing but which leave bomblets around for years. The bomblets are visually appealing to children, causing considerable harm to them. UNICEF works hard in this area. (http://www.unicef.org/eapro/media_14458.html http://www.unicef.org/eapro/media_14458.html) (http://www.unicefusa.org/campaigns/public-policy-advocacy/keep-cluster-munitions-out-of.html http://www.unicefusa.org/campaigns/public-policy-advocacy/ke...)
- sampsonjs 13y ago
  All of which is happening now, in addition to the activity mentioned in the article. Ever hear of Meles Zenawi rayiner? I know, the New York Times didn't like to talk about him, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. If the US started shipping arms to the reincarnation of Suharto tomorrow, I image Mr. Rayiner would be here arguing: "Guns are so much more humane than missile strikes. A bullet can kill at most two, three people. So much more precision!" Also: cruise missles were designed to take out installations. The relative payload of a weapon is an issue of cost and weight ratios, not mercy.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I don't really see your point. Mine is that it's silly to hold drone strikes up as some example of a shift for the worse in U.S. foreign policy, especially for someone talking about "growing up in the '70s." The drone strikes are alleged, in the article, to have killed as many as 400 civilians over 9 years. In comparison, 500-600 civilians were killed in just the few of months of NATO bombings of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war. And the 1990's was a picnic compared to the 1980's or 1970's. The U.S. has never hesitated to use force abroad to protect American interests. This goes back to the early days of the Republic, when Thomas Jefferson authorized attacks on Tripoli to protect American shipping. People have a visceral reaction to drone strikes, but the fact is that they're a more delicate instrument than the other tools we would otherwise be using.
rorrr2 13y ago
> By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

by spodek 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago

I grew up in the 80s in the Soviet Union. And the thing is, we never believed their propaganda because it was too ridiculous. Everyone was laughing at the bullshit they heard on the radio and TV. True believers have disappeared probably the the mid 60s or so. Even defecting spies had stopped using "ideology" as the reason for their defection it was too unbelievable. Likewise might happen in US. It seems two things has happened already. They stretched propaganda vs reality difference too thin. And the Internet. It becomes harder to keep a straight face telling others about freedom, privacy, free market, human rights in light of news about torture, drones, spying etc. Also, without an ability to get access to alternative media and if Fox was the only channel available many would still thing this country was God's gift to humanity. It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. On another note. There was an old joke from back in the 90's. "When Soviet Union fell, we found out everything they told us about Communism was a lie. And everything they told us about America was true". Good counter-propaganda after all, is often not telling lies just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. In other words I doubt the Marshall Plan America is a good ol America or is it the America that still believed in segregation, raping South American countries for profit, installing brutal dictators in South East Asia and so on.

gruseom 13y ago
Good counter-propaganda after all is often not telling lies, just telling the dark truth the other side is trying to hide. That's very well put.
jakejake 13y ago
That's really interesting to hear the "other side" as it were. I think the US mentality is to simply not tell you anything about the other county so that you don't develop any sort of personal feelings. I was a child during the cold war, but I actually could not tell you one thing about any Russian person that I was told during that time, aside from the "evil" leaders hated our way of life and how they desperately wanted to destroy us. Unfortunately I think that still works - it's still not that unusual to hear about how terrorist hate our freedom, want to take away our freedom, etc. If you have any interesting in understanding why such thing may be true - you have to go out of your way to find news about it.
- vastinfest 13y ago
  I think it's just easier to paint yourself as good guys when you can leverage "us" vs "them" mentality. During cold war that was USA vs USSR, now its USA vs terrorists. Real beuty of that is that it works from boths sides - USA hated commies from USSR, USSR hated evil capitalists from USA. Now same thinking can be applied to both USA and terrorists (when you think about it - USA has invaded couple countries and is actively bulying rest of the world into shape). During cold war there was USSR to keep USA in check so to say. Now there's USA and some people without any real resources behind them fighting out of idea. Even sadder thing - both sides have people who believe all that "we" are good guys are absolutely true. I was born in USSR couple of years before collapse (I don't remember anything solid myself), but to this day my parents say that "then" things were better, everybody had jobs, everybody was happy (partly because vodka was water cheap, partly because nobody told anybody what really happened in places where happened things like biological or nuclear weapons manufacture). I can guarrantee you same exact things happened over in the USA. When I say "happened" i really mean "happens".. I can't currently decide who next will stomp over my country..
- Amadou 13y ago
  I was a child during the cold war, but I actually could not tell you one thing about any Russian person that I was told during that time, I still remember Sting's song Russians with the rhetorical lyric, "Do the Russians Love their Children Too?" Which is kind of the opposite of your point, since it wasn't Big Evil propaganda.
mpyne 13y ago
> It is just the pesky Internets that lets "domestic terrorists" like Occupy organize and share idea. Pesky little extremists forums like /r/news lets people discuss issues outside the mainstream media. Why does everyone blame the evil MSM? Fox News was started because the MSM was 'too liberal'. I mean, I sort of agree with your overall point, but if you want to see what 'domestic terrorists' could do before the Internet then you need not look any further than Weather Underground (70s-80s) or the various radical right-wing organizations that hit their peak in the 90s with the Oklahoma City bombing. You know what killed Occupy? Occupy! No goal, no purpose, just "we hate the bankers and we hate the gub'mint!". Well, take a number, guys, you can get in line with practically the whole rest of the country. But don't try to pin that on suppression of alternative media. Alternative media is out there, and it's been out there. The technology used to spread the message has changed, but the message has always been available. It's just that no one actually cares.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  > You know what killed Occupy? Occupy! No goal, no purpose, just "we hate the bankers and we hate the gub'mint!". Well, take a number, guys, you can get in line with practically the whole rest of the country. I never argued for supporting Occupy. The problems isn't about occupy, the problem is that FBI and their corporate partners thought they are dangerous enough to label them as "domestic terrorists". Think about it. A bunch of people without a goal, disorganized, non-violent, and they bothered to label them as terrorist. Good Lord. What if they were more organized. What would those watching them be doing? Assassinating them with drones. > The technology used to spread the message has changed, but the message has always been available. It's just that no one actually cares. It is a mater of degrees. There used to be zines and meetings and what not. Getting a hold of a publisher, printing on dead trees, distributed that is a lot of effort than just posting a blog. So saying alternative media was there and it is there now. Is true. But it was never in the same quantity and availability. The latency was much higher as well. There aren't dark and white colors only. Only radicals vs authoritarians. People are on the continuum and drift across it. Availability of information is that makes that easier. One can become more informed or go further into conspiracy theory fantasy world. But overall it is a very positive development. > Why does everyone blame the evil MSM? Fox News was started because the MSM was 'too liberal'. There is nothing to blame there. They are simply following their incentives. Fox News, MSM and all others are large corporations in the business to make money (largely from advertising). They are not in the business of informing the public. They would operate according to basic incentives. This is very well described and researched in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent work. The work is not new but it is still very valuable to read and very actual.

potatolicious 13y ago

Not only is it painful to watch this, it's even more painful to think about how far we've fallen, and how quickly. It wasn't that long ago where most mainstream US media sources could be trusted to provide insightful, fact-checked journalism.

clicks 13y ago
And yet I still think the reason it happened was not because of gov't intricately and carefully orchestrating things with great forethought, it happened because media corporations went after easy profit and found out that pandering to the religious right was an easy and worthwhile thing to do to bring in the money. Of course it isn't as if gov't isn't in on it, it is -- but not it ways that people think. They're doing it more subtly: "The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’ but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations." http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the-deep-politics-of-hollywood/11921 http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the... http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propaganda-and-censorship-the-hollywood-industrial-complex/ http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propag...
vacri 13y ago
The internet killed fact-checkers. In order to beat the 24-hour news cycle, reports have to be done asap, and fact-checking just gets in the way. Removing fact-checking is just a risk management strategy, methinks, as sure you'll lose out from time to time, but overall you'll be so much faster!. I lament the loss of fact-checking, and it pains me to see errors in professional services that should be picked up be even first-year tertiary students.
- mattm 13y ago
  No, it's because the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine [1] which lead to the rise of biased "news" channels in order to gain viewers. The Harper government in Canada recently eliminated Canada's version of this and I shudder what to think will happen 10-20 years down the line. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

The Marshall Plan came at a cost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

CoffeeDregs 13y ago

Agreed. For me, the most depressing part is that I, as a Republican [not a retard "movement" conservative, but a non-Progressive [yes, I believe in Climate Change]], voted for Obama and his message of transparency. I shouldn't have "believed" in a politician, but I did. Crazy time: liberal friends are now defending the NSA's actions... Cats and dogs are living together in peace. WTF?

coldtea 13y ago
Well, it was not like Republican and Democrat parties were really apart in the first place. One is left of centre, the other is right of centre. The both agree on the centre. They have some token issues to ramp up their followers (gay marriage on one side, religion on the other, etc), but no matter who is in power the country works more or less the same for 90% of issues. Does anyone feel like a huge change is happening in his everyday life and the workings of the country, when the other party comes into power after some time?
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  One is right of center, the other is even more right of center, if you consider parties in other countries.
  - andybak 13y ago
    Yep. Brit here. We tend to laugh when we hear the Democrats described as 'Center-left'.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Actually that's true. I just used the terms they are described with in their local political scene. Compared to our parties, both are on the right. And it's a shame that the democratic party, from what I've read, has gotten even more on the right as times move along, even being bullish against the sixties spirit etc. From this book (which is half light pop culture references and half decent period analysis) I've come to the conclusion that this happened in the eighties: http://www.amazon.com/Back-Our-Future-Now-Our-Everything/product-reviews/0345518780 http://www.amazon.com/Back-Our-Future-Now-Our-Everything/pro...

falk 13y ago

"By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did." "I keep slipping back into believing the United States government believes in honesty and transparency..." The U.S. government never believed in honesty and transparency and you're lying to yourself thinking that they did. Our press has constantly manipulated us. Lies and secrets are just getting easier to expose. I suggest you read the following: - A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present by Howard Zinn - Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

newnewnew 13y ago
Or for the far right-wing version: A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-...) Part 2 is where he examines the myths surrounding the Revolutionary War, and it is very good (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_15.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-...)

coldtea 13y ago

>Growing up in the 70s, we looked at news from the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes as blatantly untrue propaganda. By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency -- they may have lied, but not on the scale the others did. Well, it lied alright and on a huge scale. The establishment dropped a-bombs on civillians with BS pretexes (one can still find them on party line history books, from where lots of people get their official version of wisdom), invaded tons of countries in the name of "democracy" (that is, resources and influence), from Vietnam to Panama, established dictatorships (e.g the toppling of Iran's legitimate government back in the fifties), persecuted people in the McCarthy era, stomped on the blacks and civil rights movement, etc. The difference with the USSR is that it wasn't totalitarian inside the country. USSR was like 1984, US was like Brave New World. >It's painful to watch a government that instituted the Marshall Plan actively destroy its credibility like this Well, the Marshall Plan was (among other stated goals) a way to extract influence upon the broken Europe, pay the right people at the right places, and ascert the top dog position.

rayiner 13y ago

I don't remember anyone denying that drone strikes result in civilian causalities. But guess what we did before we had drone strikes? We did cruise missile attacks, targeted bombings, arming of rebels, and often full scale proxy wars. Drone strikes kill a lot fewer civilians than the alternatives we used during the Cold War.

DanBC 13y ago
Yes. I'm uneasy about drone strikes, but they're a lot better than cluster bombs, which not only kill people during the bombing but which leave bomblets around for years. The bomblets are visually appealing to children, causing considerable harm to them. UNICEF works hard in this area. (http://www.unicef.org/eapro/media_14458.html http://www.unicef.org/eapro/media_14458.html) (http://www.unicefusa.org/campaigns/public-policy-advocacy/keep-cluster-munitions-out-of.html http://www.unicefusa.org/campaigns/public-policy-advocacy/ke...)
sampsonjs 13y ago
All of which is happening now, in addition to the activity mentioned in the article. Ever hear of Meles Zenawi rayiner? I know, the New York Times didn't like to talk about him, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. If the US started shipping arms to the reincarnation of Suharto tomorrow, I image Mr. Rayiner would be here arguing: "Guns are so much more humane than missile strikes. A bullet can kill at most two, three people. So much more precision!" Also: cruise missles were designed to take out installations. The relative payload of a weapon is an issue of cost and weight ratios, not mercy.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I don't really see your point. Mine is that it's silly to hold drone strikes up as some example of a shift for the worse in U.S. foreign policy, especially for someone talking about "growing up in the '70s." The drone strikes are alleged, in the article, to have killed as many as 400 civilians over 9 years. In comparison, 500-600 civilians were killed in just the few of months of NATO bombings of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war. And the 1990's was a picnic compared to the 1980's or 1970's. The U.S. has never hesitated to use force abroad to protect American interests. This goes back to the early days of the Republic, when Thomas Jefferson authorized attacks on Tripoli to protect American shipping. People have a visceral reaction to drone strikes, but the fact is that they're a more delicate instrument than the other tools we would otherwise be using.

rorrr2 13y ago

> By comparison, our press and government practiced transparency Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War