05-30-2008, 04:10 PM
Semantics.
The only real U.S. interest in Vietnam was thwarting the spread of communism; the invasion of non-communist nations by communist aggressors posed a global threat to democracy, the American way of life, etc, etc. THAT is all we cared about. But Americans weren't about to send their sons to die over a "threat" to democracy on the opposite side of the world. So the U.S. (Kennedy) had to spin the real objective into something all the 'doves' could buy into. Naturally, he invoked a more altruistic guise -- i.e., a "model" for "aiding" weak, unstable non-communist nations in their struggle to "modernize", and to curb the suffering of people amidst that transition.
Sound familiar?
Of the mish-mash of various loosely-linked "interests" which the US has in Iraq (i.e. oil, the threat of the growing terrorist network, the dictatorial oppression of the voice of a people and the slaughter of those who show any resistence, etc.) none were quite enough to stand alone in the justification of an invasion. Nor could they be linked together in a seamless thread so as to present an argument that would convince the "doves" and the "in betweens" that invasion was justified. Hence, the whole WMD fiasco.
Call it what you will, it's the same song and dance -- a nation masking its true interests with anything that the citizens might stomach to justify bloodshed. That's pretty much the definition of "propaganda".
The only real U.S. interest in Vietnam was thwarting the spread of communism; the invasion of non-communist nations by communist aggressors posed a global threat to democracy, the American way of life, etc, etc. THAT is all we cared about. But Americans weren't about to send their sons to die over a "threat" to democracy on the opposite side of the world. So the U.S. (Kennedy) had to spin the real objective into something all the 'doves' could buy into. Naturally, he invoked a more altruistic guise -- i.e., a "model" for "aiding" weak, unstable non-communist nations in their struggle to "modernize", and to curb the suffering of people amidst that transition.
Sound familiar?
Of the mish-mash of various loosely-linked "interests" which the US has in Iraq (i.e. oil, the threat of the growing terrorist network, the dictatorial oppression of the voice of a people and the slaughter of those who show any resistence, etc.) none were quite enough to stand alone in the justification of an invasion. Nor could they be linked together in a seamless thread so as to present an argument that would convince the "doves" and the "in betweens" that invasion was justified. Hence, the whole WMD fiasco.
Call it what you will, it's the same song and dance -- a nation masking its true interests with anything that the citizens might stomach to justify bloodshed. That's pretty much the definition of "propaganda".