Via BoingBoing, 2Bangkok.com has some pictures of Japanese propaganda from WWII (click to enlarge):
It's eerie how much this enemy propaganda from six decades ago resembles the New York Times op-ed page:
JAPANESE WWII PROPAGANDA
"Farewell, American Soldiers!" leaflet:
Bob Herbert, No End in Sight in Iraq, 8/10/05:
FOLLOW-UP:
A translation of the Japanese-language propaganda materials on 2Bangkok.com can be found at Paul Battley's po-ru.com. (Found via Mutantfrog.)
 |
JAPANESE WWII PROPAGANDA
"Farewell, American Soldiers!" leaflet:
Your politicians are among those who survive and are enjoying life comfortably at home. General Marshall and General MacArthur can enjoy their reputation as heroes only because they are alive. But you… you continue to march westwards to sure death, to keep your rendezvous with the grave.NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED
Bob Herbert, No End in Sight in Iraq, 8/10/05:
The president is on vacation. He's down at the ranch riding his bicycle and clearing brush. The death toll for Americans has streaked past the 1,800 mark. ... But if Mr. Bush has experienced any regret about the carnage he set in motion when he launched the war, he's not showing it.Sheesh. At least the Japanese gave their leaflets away free. A hard copy of the Times costs a buck.
FOLLOW-UP:
A translation of the Japanese-language propaganda materials on 2Bangkok.com can be found at Paul Battley's po-ru.com. (Found via Mutantfrog.)
I'll give you that. Propaganda comes in many forms. Rough as a cob and slick as the NY Times.
According to the article, he doesn't spend a huge amount of time with each family, but it's not a simple "grin and grip"; he takes time to find out about the lost soldier, share the family's greif, and find out what he can do (and he apparently follows up on concrete requests). He's cried openly with some families, and he always comes away from these things with red eyes. When Laura accompanies him, she comes away "looking devastated".
As I said, this isn't a well-publicized thing, so he's not doing this for political gain. He's met with something like 250 families over the last couple of years (including Sheehan). The Newsweek reporter couldn't come right out and say it, but he does this because he's a stand-up guy who beleives in the concept of a moral responsiblity.
I have some idea how difficult that must be for him, because when my wife lost a baby five months into the pregancy, I think it was almost as hard for the ultrasound tech as it was for us. I don't think they've printed enough money for me to take a job that would requre facing parents who've lost a child and knowing that it was my decision that sent them into harm's way.
Compare this to the Bob Herbert quote above, and draw your own conclusions. I can only add one thing - compare and contrast these actions with Clinton's actions to avoid having his sexual indiscretions outed, then tell me who's the weasel and who's the real man.
Actually, Newsweek says Bush visits the bases about 10 times a year, so it's less than once a month--but, boy, does he MEAN it when he does! Moreover, the article makes clear that it's an assembly line affair where he meets with more than 30 families at a time in a period of 90 minutes. So each gets something on the order of 3 minutes.
I'd be the last to suggest that any of this matters. Bush's view--according to his actions--is that the parents should be proud enough that their sons and daughters died for Achmad Chalabi's Halliburton stock options.
The comparison to Clinton is a bit mysterious. How does that come up? How does a blow job with a willing intern compare to starting a war on false pretences? Who died as a result of Clinton's loco libido?
We can start with Iraq. Using the same intelligence and the same dictator (that is, his refusal to abide by the cease fire agreement), he launched multiple tomahawk raids on that country.
The deaths of American soldiers in Somalia. He did not treat our fighting soldiers as crystal figurines either. Secondly, his rushed withdrawal left OBL with a sense that America was too decadent to fight back when hit hard.
The aspirin factory in the Sudan was bombed under blatantly false and spurious circumstances. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out, that factory provided medicine for many in that area.
On the other hand, Rawanda was genocide like, but not genocidal enough for us to intervene. Of course, its really Belgium's fault, but everyone seems to blame us anyway.
Then there is the canoodling with North Korea. For some reason, our actions there led to the deaths of 2million North Koreans. And gave them the bomb. See also China.
We bombed Bosnia without UN approval, and I have not really heard much about the so-called mass graves. I may be wrong, but what we found were military graves (i.e., young men who died in battle). Nonetheless, we bombed that country fairly harshly.
And, we can get into the Gorelick/Able-Danger mess with OBL in the first place. You have the 93 WTC bombing as well as the USS Carr. Maybe not lies, but these acts further emboldened OBL (not mention left him free to further gut Afghanistan).
Secondly, in the Newsweek article, it points out that he meets these families in groups. So, he does not visit the several hundred families piecemeal, but on the same date.
Glad antimedia steered me here.
Maybe it's just me being old-fashioned, but Clinton's conduct reeks of disrepect for the lives of the servicemen in his charge. If you're arguing with someone about sending soldiers into harm's way, you should get your **** out of your intern's mouth and give the matter your full attention. IMO: If there is one incident, above all, that illustrates why Clinton will never be regarded as one of America's truly great presidents, this one is it. He chose hedonism over character every time.
And it is good to know that President Bush has never received a blow job from an intern his daughter's age while running this country or this war.
Bush is wise. He keep his pecker in his pants.
Clinton lied and men died!
-Peace.
I guess this is why the "Moral Issues" thing was so confusing to some people.
On the one hand, you have someone who argued over the meaning of the word "is" in order to avoid taking responsibility for his own childish actions, and only admitted to his infidelities when a DNA test made all further weaseling impossible.
On the other, you have a man who goes out of his way (production-line or not) to meet with bereaved families and look them in the eye, knowing that it was his decision that put their loved ones into harm's way.
You can try to glibly toss this off with another tired reference to Haliburton, or you can try to think like a parent for a moment and consider how hard it must be on him as a father himself. Three minutes in this situation probably feels like five-to-life. Yet it's something that he does because (and only because) he feels that he owes it to these families.
The amazing thing to me is that you "nuanced" people just can't see past your own anger about the last two elections long enough to see what's at stake. You're so caught up in not loosing an argument that you refuse to see what you're arguing FOR. So you raise an endless stream of red herrings like Haliburton (yes, dammit, they’re making a profit! Get over it!), so that you don't have to address whether it's right to fight and die to prevent 1/4 of the world's population from falling into the hands of a movement that wants to turn its back on the last 700 years of human progress. You complain about human rights abuses in Abu Graib and refuse to consider whether it's an improvement over the 184,000 (and I did get THAT statistic right!) Kurds who went "missing" under the former regime.
As long as I can remember, people like you have been bitching about the dictators the US propped up during the cold war. Now we've taken out one of the worst, and your primary concern seems to be that the wrong party will get credit for doing it. You've fought for the last 50 years for civil rights for people of color, and 30 years for women's rights, and now you're siding with people who are supporting genocide in Africa, consider Hindus a waste of skin, and view women as property. You claim to be a progressive, but you think that the Iraqis should be abandoned to a legal system that makes Nazi show-trials look like the Hague. You claim to be grieving over the loss of American soldiers, but you cynically trade on the loss of one woman’s son in order to advocate a cut-and-run policy that will make his death and all the other deaths completely meaningless. You claim to be a patriot, but you advance a policy that you know will only enable further terrorists attacks on an America viewed as too timid to defend itself.
You do all of this just so that you don't have to admit that someone you personally detest might be doing The Right Thing.
Damn! I think I'm in love, LOL!
I am sure a member of the "reality based community" has already taken your points and dissected them with the razor sharp response of "absolute moral authority" (AMA). Dowd has started and others have repeated this phrase, a mother who loses a child in combat has AMA.
Now, it may be true that America opposed fascists and other forms of totalitarianism, but if you were really smart you would know the definition of fascism has changed from the time Mussolini was the day's Che Guevara (who cares about his spelling). If there were a starbucks in the 1930's, your out sullen socialist would have been wearing a tshirt with his name on it because he kept it real. I found an interesting article on it here.
The sole remaining element of fascism that survives in the mind of the intellectual is that overt displays of patriotism are fascist. And something to do with business. You see, those Americans who are patriotic or take off their hat during the national anthem are being duped by the man into ignoring the dire straits we are all in. Patriotism being the opiate given by fascism. Ignore the origins of fascism as a trendy new form of socialism.
But I digress. AMA is what this is about. Now if I were to look at Sheehan and listen to her talk about the Jewish Cabal and how Bush is the real terrorist, I would say she was a nutjob and an anti-semite. I would also wonder that if there were even a grain of truth in what she says, it must be a wonderful day in the middle east because Bush has managed to act under the influences of the Jews (ahem, neocons) and the Saudis. And big business (Halliburton!!!). Again, the point is AMA. She lost her son, now she has AMA. So says the left. So, her vision of Jews controlling everything, that we should cut and run and all the other fun tidbits are, in essense, absolute points. And who flocks to her side, giving the title to AMA? Well, I think we all who, and it says a lot about the Sheehan supporters and the breathless media who manage to give this deranged person a very large pedestal.
Look at the woman. Look at her views and how she is using her dead son to promote them. He volunteered and fought. He reenlisted. An Islamist militant killed him. And most likely that person was not Iraqi but Syrian.
--Artie (acknowledging Obi-Wan's earlier post on this topic)
As has been stated before " MY NATION RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT MY NATION RIGHT OR WRONG
Are your views on the Iraq war so hardened, and your attachment to them so emotional, that you really mean to equate the expression of an opinion contrary to yours or the Administration's with enemy propaganda? I suspect not, but your facile equation, while perhaps reinforcing cohesion among those supportive of the war, otherwise does nothing but undermine thoughtful discussion.
There may be "legitimate reasons to question the Iraq War", but the notion that Bush doesn't seem to be adequately grief-stricken is not among them.
And yes, we do have a 1st Amendment right to free speech. I found it ironic and darkly humorous that an op-ed columnist at America's leading newspaper chose to exercise that right to say things very similar to what our mortal enemies said during WWII in an effort to demoralize us.
I'm looking forward to a good long drink tonight.
I am in favor of an active, committed foreign policy with idealistic, long-term goals tempered by realism. From that point of view, I find much to be concerned about regarding the merits of the Iraq war, the Administration's selling of it and the conduct of the war itself.
We need a much deeper, and more well-informed, discussion about what this war is all about, what our foreign policy goals are or should be, and whether the war serves those purposes. I offer some questions relating to the war:
Why is a Republican administration, headed by a President who disavowed nation-building, pouring hundreds of billions into Iraq, yet not making a serious effort to deal with alarming budget and trade deficits?
By securing military bases in central Asia post 9-11, did we intend to aid an autocratic Russia and a rapidly growing China? We have predictably stirred up security and energy fears on both sides - such that the two are now conducting joint military exercises for the first time in God knows how long. Russia has nationalized Yukos and is now setting itself up to sell advanced weapons to China.
Did we also intend to strengthen the regional dominance of Shiite Iran, by dissolving the secular Sunni Baath party? How did we expect to avoid the rise of a Koranic-theocracy of the type that now in control in Basra, when with the Shiite religious leaders provide the only remaining source political legitimacy?
Why were our interests in possible WMDs and tyranny in Iraq suddenly so compelling after the ousting of the Taliban (and al Quaida) from power in Afghanistan, that we needed to rush to invade without securing support from "old Europe" or Turkey? Were the perceived gains from invasion so great and the risks so low, so that it was best just to plunge ahead, while 9/11 was still fresh and Americans accepting a linkage between al Qaida and Iraq?
Can we make the world safe for Americans by invading or threatening, substantially single-handedly, countries that are sources of regional or global instability? Just as relevant, as a practical matter can we afford to do so, and why are we billing future taxpayers for the current war (deficit spending) rather raising gasoline or income taxes to pay as we go?
Does it make sense to prop up corrupt and autocratic regimes around the world, and continue to subsidize over-consumption of oil at home, by failing to reflect oil supply-line defense costs in the price of gasoline?
Why are we fuelling the global arms race with our own nuclear weapons investments, while underfunding the program designed to secure and dismantle nukes in Russia?
If we are concerned about human rights and democracy, what should we do about Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Myanmar, Pakistan, Tibet, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia?
I enjoy a “deeper, and more well-informed, discussion about what this war is about” as much as the next guy. So, I decided to read through your next 500 words or so. On one hand, you raise some often asked and answered questions (no to nation building) to pie-in-the-sky observations like why are we at war when we are running a deficit. Or how come we think we have cheap gas when we have to have a huge army to protect it? (the answer is another question “if that were true, then why are our taxes lower than most of Europe?”).
“Why is a Republican Administration, one that down played “nation-building” pouring hundreds of billions into Iraq, yet not making a serious effort to deal with alarming budget and trade deficits?”
Honestly, this is too uninformed to answer. But let’s try. First, the shark attacks of September 10 led the Bush administration to understand that as we took the shark’s natural habitats, we must be willing to destroy Islamic regimes that advocate or support the destruction of western civilization. Especially when they support militants who advocate the creation of a caliphate.
In addition, this alarming trade and budget deficit business is so non-starter. You may have missed how unemployment is at 5%, the budget deficit projections are shrinking. The positive economic developments of the Bush administration don’t get any positive play from the media, but its no longer 2000-2002. The tax cuts are a serious administration effort for the economy. CAFTA is a serious effort for fair trade, hopefully helping trade deficits, as well. Also, trade deficits don’t address a lot of intellectual property or services we sell to other nations.
Your next three paragraphs are gibberish, including the big lie about no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Are you saying an “active, committed foreign policy with idealistic, long-term goals tempered by realism” would somehow avoid any negative action? China trying to gain power? Iran’s regional dominance (how is that working for them, anyway? Did I miss this? Iranian youths are now pro-theocracy? Did they cause Lebanon to be freed?)? Turkey trying to bribe America as an invasion route? Nitpick and hallucinate that these objections are bigger than the overall goal.
Can we make the world safer by threatening … countries? Yes. The Patriot Act helps too.
Can we afford to do so? Yes.
Does it make sense to prop up corrupt regimes? Name one.
Why do we focus on one problem but not the other? Lets drop it all and invade Tibet.
But sorry for sounding snooty. Your points are taken. I appreciate the "what about Russian nuclear disarmament" argument better than whatever it was Herbert was trying to prove.
I think we can all agree that the word "streaking" or "sky-rocketing" should be banned by the media. That is, unless the underlying number has doubled twice within the last, say 5 months (this also a slam on coverage of gas prices. oh no, gas is now $2.30, up from $2.10, its skyrocketing!).
Fair enough. I'm in favor of short-circuiting the Moslem equivalent of the Reformation by creating proof positive, right in the cradle of Islam, that modernization is the correct path. That's what this is all about.
What the Moslem world is going through today should have happened before the age of WMD, same-day intercontental travel, and mass communication; they should have been allowed the luxury of several generations of calm reflection and gruesome murder to come to the inevitable conclusion that when you mix government and religion, you end up with crappy government and a corrupted religion. They should then be given another century of so to come to the conclusion that virtue isn't really virtue when it's enforced by fear.
Theoretically, we in the west should sit back and let them (and Allah) sort it all out, and not take sides.
Unfortunately, we can't. Firstly, because the very existance of our open, democratic, and prosperous societies fly in the face of what the extremists want institute in the Islamic world. Like it or not, we're on the side of the modernists, because as long as we exist, we're the best argument for modernization.
Secondly, our open, modern and prosperous societies are incredibly vulnerable to attack, as we Americans learned the hard way on 9/11. In the short run we can all pretend that taking our shoes off at the airport actually helps stop terror, but in the long run either we're going to have to become less open and less democratic (and as a result less prosperous), or the extremists will have to be defeated.
Which of course raises the question, how do you defeat an enemy who has no borders, wears no uniform, hides in and among your own population, has no known military assets to attack, and needs only a few thousand dollars here and there to cause massive deaths and economic losses?
Well, we can't. There's always going to be one more Soldier for God, ready and willing to kill the innocents that God the All-Powerful is somehow unable to reach. The closest we'll be able to get to defeating the extremists is to make thier position completely pointless. And that's ONLY going to happen when there is a stable, prosperous government of, by, and for Arabs (and it DOES have to be in an Arab country), that's based on Islamic principals but does NOT subscribe to Sharia.
It's still an open question to me whether that's even possible; I don't see how a real democracy can exist in harmony with the idea of women as property and the "acceptance" of non-muslims only as second-class citizens. But what we're doing in Iraq has to happen if the side of modernization is ever going to win.
And THATs why I think we should be there.
Also, along the lines of fighting an amorphous, amoral yet completely religous enemy, you have to give them an outlet. The flypaper strategy is well at work in Iraq.
Thousands of would be Jihaadists trained in Afghanistan during the 90's. Some managed to get themselves in flight school in the US, or on welfare in London. But now, we have an outlet for them in Iraq. Think of it as a drain pipe. Its hard to create a new network in America now that we have the Patriot Act, but its easy to cross into Iraq.
When Gen. Keane talks about 50,000 insurgents killed or captured within the last 7 months (or similarly what Michael Yon cause the intel cascade (one captured tango leads to another)), he is probably talking about these kinds of people. There are the Islamists who took advantage of these training camps, and those who come over, unable to train, only fit to be a suicide bomb.
With our society, even in John Ashcroft's prison camp called Amerikkkkka, its still too easy for a bad guy to cross into our country and create havoc. Its bad enough we have to contend with free-agents like the beltway snipers. We have to take the fight to the bad guys.
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.