Perhaps I overreacted, slightly, but there are still many problems with the way you perceive this issue, because you missed the main point that this animation explicitly refers to which is recent revelations of generals on the DOD's payroll to go on all media outlets to sell this war to the American people to benefit the MIC.

Actually, no. There's nuance to both and a well known connotation when it comes to how it is used and who benefits. You can't equate a community of people who share a moral outlook to corporations who benefit financially from this war and gain power such as PNAC, the Heritage Foundation, how governments control their people in China or the former Soviet Union, to propaganda being a group of people's outlook. You could try to equate them with structural symmetry, but that does not mean they are one and the same at all. You say they are the same taxonomy? You would be wrong. You could say that both forms of propaganda in your example would have the same sub-types, but that does not mean there is enough constraints to relate to them directly for they don't have a supertype relationship. For instance, a car is a subtype of vehicle. So any car is also a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a car. Therefore, a thing needs to satisfy more constraints to be a car than to be a vehicle. Given the reason that propaganda as it's known has been widely used for political purposes to benefit organizations/ governments of some type over in the past up to know to deceive in most cases, what you refer to as propaganda would need more constraints in order to qualify given the circumstances. So that is an oversimplification, despite whatever similar sub-types are possible in relation, so you're going to have to live with that.

Well perhaps I misjudged you; blame it on the McCain apologists that have me stirred up from the excellent McCain animation. So I'll concede here and say perhaps I was a little too harsh, though there are still many things I believe you're wrong about.

Again, a sub-type does not equal a super-type. Certain organizations, war profiteers, oil companies directly benefit from the propaganda they spiel out. The antiwar movements only benefit in knowing their fellow human being are not beings are not being slaughtered for oil and benefiting the think tanks I mentioned earlier.

Generals who are paid to spread this propaganda to benefit the neocons in office are the widely known supertype of propaganda that is well known in it's actual historical context referring to manipulating the masses to support war and to financially benefit and cover up the puppeteers behind the strings. It has nothing to do with national morale(They're not FDR during WWII) and it does not depend how angry you are in how you define the two given how propaganda has been used to sell wars for centuries. There is no supertype parity, so this example is on shaky ground, especially when you consider that everything has nuance according to context and actual reality in it's practice.

I know he doesn't need me to defend him, but it seemed your snide remark about how you wished you could animate and your indifference is why I took offense. It sounded like you were tarnishing animation, but perhaps you didn't mean it, but you should be careful with how you make your points and their effect.

I'm not saying you can't criticize Mark, but it sounded like you were attacking the art form, instead of the man by your insistence that the subtype of editorial cartoons have been used for what we know as propaganda purposes(BTW propaganda is hardly ever used in a positive light in everyone's usage of the term according to actual events and context surrounding the uses of propaganda over the years) so the "vehicle" as you put it is a glass house is erroneous at best, for , again, their is no supertype relation, for there needs to be more constraints to qualify, but at least you admit that editorial cartoons are good journalism. which is funny, because if you think they are good journalism, then why conflate what i just mentioned? is good journalism telling good distortions, as well as facts? No and that's starting to the main point of this piece.

Your plainly wrong about your historical rewfrences, I hate to tell you. John Adams wasn;t sent to France, because he wanted to whine and dine there, they needed French ships during the American revolution and they needed the help of Lafayette. It was a very close guerrilla war(out TACTIC) on our side that we were fighting and no matter how much Washington "believed," there was always "strategy " involved and that has absolutely nothing to do with this war or really any war you mention. the Russians mowed down the Nazis at Stalingrad, because they planned to have superior weaponry, via specially modified machine guns. We held back the revolutionnaires air support during the Cuban Missile crisis, it wasn't that the Cuban army "put on the rose colored glasses and "believed."

D-Day wasn't a fun romp on the beach with an optimistic attitude, it was a well planned strategy that took risk by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yes, the soldiers have to believe in the mission, but again, you put that fought as the variable to exactly why the Chechnya fought off the Russians or when you par off Ulysses s. Grant's strategy during the civil war it's way more complicated than what you are referring to and when you discount strategy and conflate what the generals are saying now with how those battles were actually won, you are saying rose colored glasses are the same thing as strategy whether you like it or not. Sometimes believing in the mission and affecting morale can turn the tide, but without a plan it's essentially not going to win the war, merely the battle at the time. It was an oversimplification, face it. You should have used a better analogy. I could also refer you to William Wallace, who yes, believed in himself as a leader and the effort, but we all know he had a strategy to defeat the English at Sterling and York. Patton's invasion of Italy. etc. etc. There's no supertype here, either, it's only a subtype, when strategy is the much bigger picture which you have overlooked in your original example.

You implied numerous times that rose colored glasses were prec9sely why we won tough wars, when that's simply not the case. It's a factor, but strategy is what prevails and I was referring to the U.S and France getting involved in civil wars between two indistinguishable enemies and killing all guerrillas would not be a civil war like we are getting involved with now and what the Vietnam war was, so no. We have never prevailed in that situation, though I know you're not saying that now, but there's much more to do with it than a positive outlook in all cases.

I wasn't saying that there could not be dissenting opinions and that you have to like Mark's piece, though I dying to hear the "other side" because that's laughably pathetic that one would think there is a "good side" of a 3 trillion dollar war that has ruined our standing in the world. It's time to stop pretending that there is a good side to neo-conservative philosophy; there's no legitimacy to that POV whatsoever and I'm saying that, not Mark. That's funny when people say that there's always two sides to every story and I don't pretend to speak for Mark for I am merely arguing that your points are wrong. It's time to wake up and smell the crippling debt and standing in this world and only a fool would listen to any neocon who has gotten every prediction wrong for the sake of legitimizing their warped view as a legitimate side. Of course mark doesn't want to make people just feel happy for I am taking your arguments on, and User already explained why i took offense and felt you were belittling his work, but you admitted you like it so I took on and apart everything else you said.

I didn't call you names, I called you out, and there's a difference. People who believe in this war, still, have a neurological disorder and any effort to bring in people who are the same people that think we're supposed to be in the Middle east to start Armageddon as it states in the Bible is a waste of time and these are the same people who support this war now and Bush. there is nothing to learn from the remaining group who support this ideology. They have left our country in shambles and it's time to wake up to the fact that that has absolutely nothing to do with a legitimate side of this debate at this stage of the game. IT's not and it's time to end this game.