Talk:Weapons of mass deception
I think the section that was just added about the meaning of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" contains some very interesting ideas, but they make the article fairly long. Right now it is 28,000+ characters, not counting the "bullet points" and "external links" sections, which I have already moved into separate sub-pages. Some web browsers have a problem editing articles that exceed 32,000 characters, so this is fairly close to that limit.
- Is it anticipated to grow any more? It seems livable as it is, but couldn't stand to get much longer. Given that the article has an idiomatic name and is mostly about US pre-invasion tactics re: Iraq, and given that the WMD "excuse" played the key role in justifying the invasion, it's hard to separate "what WMD means and how that is manipulated to make Iraq look bad, US look good" from the general deception tactics around that invasion. The more general stuff about PNAC and "crony capitalism" in the Bush administration could go elsewhere, as, really, it's not like they're exactly "deceiving" anyone about their plans! This is more of a bald faced power grab, probably could be discussed under oh militarism or something.
I wonder if this discussion about "weapons of mass deception" should be moved elsewhere (for example, as an analysis under the doubletalk category.
- If "WMD potential" is becoming an excuse for gross violations of international law norms, I'd say, it's probably got to become the central concern of this site, and is probably a 'category' of its own. Of all issues we might look at closely, this one probably has the greatest potential for fear-mongering and excuses for all sorts of unaccountable government actions. Consider intersection with computer technology, with surveillace, with biotechnology, anything really. What isn't "dual use"? One could argue that whoever gets to define "WMD" actually controls the world, by determining who is "the next greatest threat". This is really a slow rollout of World War IV using these technologies as an excuse - but which technologies are actally the most dangerous? There's the 'spin' and the reason this deserves our attention...
Alternately, perhaps the entire article should be restructured in some other way. For example, each of the "bullet points" could be turned into a separate article of its own in the case studies category, Thoughts, anyone? --Sheldon Rampton 22:31 13 Apr 2003 (EDT)
- Scope of the article is unclear. Retitle it, and it will become clear what belongs where. As a pre-invasion polemic, perhaps it's time has passed, and if the phrase 'weapons of mass deception' or 'weapons of mass distraction' has any legs, beyond being a 'picket phrase', then, it can find a new meaning here.
One Weapon of Mass Deception is Words of Mass Distraction, which is/are a trait of the current Bush government apart from the prelude to its invasion of Iraq; a general diversion of attention, with media assist, from other activities (legislation, appointments) to which public attention is not desired.
--Maynard 12:29 14 Apr 2003 (EDT)
I'm confused by the text referring to George Tennant. Isn't that George Tenet?!?
Older talk in this category can be found at Talk:Weapons of mass deception (old)
Explanation on rollback: The following was moved to talk as the claims therein are controversial and more appropriate for exploration and comment here. Artificial Intelligence 14:57, 12 Jul 2005 (EDT)