On Friday, August 8, 2014 9:57:43 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
I think the most important point that's not been mentioned so far in

this thread is how both the Nazi and Allied governments used propoganda

to motivate their populations. In England, German soldiers were

portrayed on posters as quazi-neanderthal apes that killed babies with

their bayonettes.

Given that their troops were helping oversea the killing of Jewish and Gypsie children, handicapped childre too, it sounds like the Britts had it about
right.



In Germany, Jews were portrayed on posters as having

many of the same characteristics as rats.



The Germans had it wrong.




With a free media and television, both sides of any conflict are

presented to the public on both sides of a border, so the use of

propoganda is no longer available to any government to motivate their

population to do anything. A good example of that is the Al Jazira

television network that interviews both sides of conflicts (primarily in

the middle east).



The only thing that bothers me is that I still see examples of

governments lying to their people in order to get the populations

support to do what that government wants.



1. In the USA, the most obvious example was when the US government said

that prescription drugs imported from Canada weren't as safe as US

drugs. In fact, in many of those cases, the drugs sold in Canada and

those sold in the US were made in the same factories in Canada, and the

only difference was the packaging or just the labels on the packaging.

It wasn't until a US Senator or Congressman decided to investigate the

matter for himself that the US Pharmaceutical Lobby in Washington fell

silent because they knew that what he would uncover would prove what

they were saying wasn't true.



2. In Canada, a recent example was when John Baird, the Canadian

minister for Foreign Affairs said that Canada would not accept the

results of a referendum in Eastern Ukraine because of the presence of

Russian backed troops in that area. The inuendo was that people would

vote to join Russia for fear of being shot. In that case, Baird was

counting on the Canadian public to be ignorant enough about Ukrainian

politics to accept that arguement as being a valid one.


I can't believe that you've posted this crap yet again. You first
brought this up a couple months ago. It wasn' true then and it
isn't true now. What Baird said is consistent with what the USA and
Europe said, which is that free, civilized countries don't accept
election results held under a gun. Russian troops have no business
in Ukraine and they and the thugs they are supporting are not allowing
free, fair elections. They arrested and locked up the major political opposition. Then they held a bogus and unconstitutional election
with Russian troops in the streets. Is that how you conduct elections
in Canada? Baird got it right, you have it wrong.



In recent

months, Ukrainians have elected a leader who is acceptable to both

eastern and western Ukraine. There are still differences in sentiment

between Eastern and Western Ukraine, but neither side wants to see the

country break apart.

Really? I don't know what news service you watch. The separatists,
backed by Putin, want exactly that, to be annexed by Russia. They pulled
that stunt in Crimea, now they are trying to repeat it and take more
of Eastern Ukraine. And they are fighting for exactly that, to join
Russia. Poroshenko is not acceptable to them. Differences in sentiment? Yeah, I'd say so. One side is shooting down airliners and denying access to
the crash site while the bodies rot. One side is supported by Russian
troops, Russian military hardware, and russian lies. Good grief.



You no longer hear the Canadian nor the US

government criticizing the Ukrainian election because the leader that

was elected isn't pro-east nor pro-west. He's 100% pro-Ukraine.




First, I don't know when the US, Canada or Europe criticized the recent
Ukranian election. They might have criticized the fact that part of eastern
Ukraine was under occupation at the time. As for Poroshenko, he clearly is fighting the separatists and the Russian troops. He's relying on the West
for support. He recognizes Putin for the thug that he is and he knows
exactly what Putin is up to. I don't think you do.