Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 03:27 PM Sep 2013

Whose Success In Syrian OUTCOME? OUR SUCCESS!

While the political world is sorting out whether Obama failed or succeeded regarding Syria, (and of course, the answer from the Republican side of the aisle is that he failed, while the answer from the Democratic side is he is a success) people in the trenches of transformative change are realizing this: WE ARE THE PART OF REASON THAT SYRIA IS NOT TO BE BOMBED.

FACT: 72 % of all Americans were AGAINST any sort of military action to be taken in Syria stemming from the sarin gas issue.


FACT
: The public's full and advanced awareness of the manipulative forces behind the "argument for military involvement" were instrumental in informing the House of Representatives that "NO WAR! No WAY!"
People are aware, on account of social media, of "Green Screen" technology, and how the Powers that Be can make use of it, and the people are not eager to accept some video or other than CNN broadcasts as a reason to approve a new war. People are aware of the history of chemical weapons that this nation has employed, and are adamant that our nation needs to think about its own involvement with chem weapons rather than adopting some nebulous "moral authority" to start a military involvement.

FACT: In addition to making the knowledge of the in's and out's of Green Screen technology available, people are using the Social Media world to keep each other informed of everything from the fact that the sarin attack occurred, there is far too much uncertainty as to who did it. And even if Assad did it, can we bomb Syria without considering bombing Great Britain, that apparently supplied the actual sarin gas to Assad?
It was the tremendous number of people on the Social Media that let us know that Kerry, Rice et al actually considered letting Dubai and Saudi Arabia pay for our "military adventure" and so the USA is now merely a mercenary state. Unless we the people stop that from becoming the full day to day reality!

On account of Social Media, you and I can connect in real time with activists in Ireland (one of whom has a broadcast that I am listening to as I type this.) Activists can use information from Al Jazeera, from RT, from Real News, from some small time news source that has a web podcast. The goal of our One Percent and its inner circle of "Powers that Be" has had as its goal the notion that everything that the average American would believe will be a lie. This was told to us when Bill Casey's famous first statement to CIA recruits ended up here on the internet.

So those of us int he know understand that the CIA has a lot of control over TV "News" station CNN. And the CIA doesn't need to extend its full on control to the corporate offices of ABC, or NBC (and MSNBC) or Fox or CBS because their corporate interests already put them in the situation where any war is a good war. It's no secret that TV Station executives know that a buildup to war, and the launch of a new war guarantees higher ratings of viewers, so any station tied into profit is quite pleased to promote the military adventures our leaders are addicted to. But Social Media allows the intelligent and concerned citizen to access multiple venues of intelligent messages, many of which are free from CIA control. The Social Media venues are free from the rhetoric of political parties and their One Percent appointed leaders. Free from limiting the message to such a tiny bit of information that the CIA message is nothing more than jingoistic prattle. The Irony of Social Media is that when an important message is whittled down to almost nothing by the forces of the One Percent, that message sinks below the heavy duty messages that make up Truth, and the activists that are in control of the Social Media messages support keeping that Truth buoyed up.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
1. Interesting post, thanks truedelphi. I agree that the voice of the people was heard in this case ..
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 04:15 PM
Sep 2013

... and that social media played a major role in that.

I also suspect there are other, unseen, forces at play. Certainly public opinion didn't have any bearing on gun owner background checks, so I wonder if they're listening to us - or someone else - this time.

Clearly our military spending is doing more harm to our nation than good, by far. Not only is it eating up dollars that should be going to infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., it has made for disastrous foreign relations. If we spent a third of what we spend on military on foreign aid, the rest of the world would love us. Instead we make more enemies.

We need to continue to develop social networking that gets us better represented in Washington in 2016. We need to quit looking like this ...





And start looking like this ...

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
4. don't get fooled again!!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:29 AM
Sep 2013

"The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama's views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren."

While progressives celebrate Warren for her fight against the big banks and the financial industry's lobbying arm, they have kept silent over the fact that she has enlisted with another powerful lobby that is willing to sabotage America's economic recovery in order to advance its narrow interests. It is AIPAC, the key arm of the Israel lobby; a group that is openly pushing for a US war on Iran that would likely trigger a global recession, as the renowned economist Nouriel Roubini recently warned. The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren's campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman "Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan" Cain, and that she doesn't care.

Warren goes on to describe Iran as "a significant threat to the United States," echoing a key talking point of fear-mongering pro-war forces.

Who does she serve? The liberal grassroots forces that made her into a populist hero or the lobby seeking to drag the US into a dubious, potentially catastrophic war? It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over than after the next war begins.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/26-8

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
6. I liked Kucinich. I know he's not a candidate now. I would have called Keith Ellison
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:27 AM
Sep 2013

a progressive (altho he's not a candidate) but he supported military intervention!

I like Bernie Sanders (altho of course he's not a Dem.)

I've liked Grayson a LOT, -
esp. during the health care debate -
but then there were some things that DU'ers said that had some merit perhaps and made a little dent in my admiration of him.

let's see....I'm hard put to think of anymore -- except those of old or those dead before their time - like Wellstone.
or going back to Vietnam, that guy from Wisconsin - whose name escapes me - a senator- a true Progressive. We seem to be scarce of them in recent years.

are there any you suggest?

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
7. maybe it's Wayne Morse I'm trying to think of--
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:31 AM
Sep 2013

progressive Wisconsin senator during Vietnam...

and then there's Feingold - is he still around?

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
8. Yeah, Russ is still around, but I don't think he has Presidential aspirations.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:17 AM
Sep 2013

Right now, no one is fighting harder for Americans than Elizabeth Warren.

Joe Shlabotnik

(5,604 posts)
2. Information is power.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 05:33 PM
Sep 2013

And the free unfettered dissemination of information is the lifeblood of democracy. Social media is beyond the control of the establishment, and to their consternation liberating from the conditioned, passive acceptance that TV once offered. TV pundits, and executives cannot spin narratives fast enough. Every statement can be fact checked. Facts don't vanish into the memory hole like they used to.

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
9. yes that is why I keep posting about Elizabeth Warren. People must look behind the surface
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:30 AM
Sep 2013

so that in 6 years they are not saying, "I'm so disappointed I thought she was a progressive." "I feel betrayed"
Not telling anyone to support her or not- but know the facts. Know what she is about, don't just go by what she says.
Remember the guy who gave a good speech to the DNC?
words are just words.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
10. I agree that the people are more informed now than in the run up to the Iraq War.
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 07:56 AM
Sep 2013

The Social Media has had a huge effect and so have other media, which didn't exist during that time such as RT which does excellent programming on International News, Al Jazeera, Whistle Blowers like Bradley Manning, Snowden, and of course Wiki Leaks and other sites, blogs, etc.

As someone said recently, it's much harder now to get a war going than it used to be due to all this new media.

However I am not sure that is the only reason. After all they don't seem to much care about what the people think on other issues such as that bank bailouts.

Otoh, it may be that our usual Allies were unable to get the support of their people either.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Occupy Underground»Whose Success In Syrian O...