A lot of so called 'news' reporting from both of the countries has a large amount of 'spin' applied to it and so causes considerable pressure to be applied to the government. Would it allow a quicker resolution to have tighter controls of reporting from the warzones and allow the Generals to get on with whatever they consider to be the most expedient way to resolve the conflicts?
I am aware of the moral dilemma this poses but increased casualties in the short term may save lives by shortening any conflice by years.
2007-08-25 05:22:24 · 20 answers · asked by keith d 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
no but if we nuked it that would sort it
2007-08-25 05:29:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
The issue is that Bush's government made a fundamental series of blunders. The media plays a minor role. The major errors - disbanding of the armies, the disbanding of the government ministries, rife unemployment. People who are unemployed, have little money and have had their dignity take away, tend to be easily swayed. It's considered very bad not to be working in the Middle East for the men. They cannot support their families so they look for "better" alternatives. The media in the USA has a lot of spin attached to it about Iraq, but it will not change things on the ground for the average Iraqi just trying to get by.
2007-08-25 12:41:30 · answer #2 · answered by camelcraig 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope. The media doesn't in any way dictate the outcome of any war. Just look at the Soviet-Afghan War, where the government-controlled Soviet media were spewing lies of victories in Afghanistan in direct contrast to the slaughter of the Soviet troops occuring there. Despite these rosy pictures of the war painted by the Soviet propaganda media, the Soviets still lost the war. So what does this tell you?.
In the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American media is in fact restricted on the news that they can report, in accordance with the guidelines imposed by the US military. For example, no pictures of dead US troops are allowed to be published or broadcast, as well as coffins of dead soldiers being unloaded from airplanes upon arrival in the US. American reporters had to be embedded with American troops, and cannot simply go to the front-lines and do the reporting on their own.
2007-08-25 18:45:13 · answer #3 · answered by Botsakis G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are for the war read this
General Peter Pace now believes this
If the surge continues past May 2008 then what should be done
18 month tours in Iraq
only 9 months at home with 15 month tours
Have a draft
be willing to sign up and go
Time is running out, if you are for the War where are you going to get your Army from?
Many of our most experienced solders are getting out
with 6 to 8 years, because they do not want a 5th or 6th tour
Families are being torn apart
How we will get the Army to fight this war?
2007-08-25 13:12:18 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure lets keep anyone from knowing the truth, like the Nazis did. It seems to work. How many pople in America are upset that 1,200 Prisoners were suffocated in one day by the man who is now Defense Minister of our Afghan Government. How many are upset that this same man is arguably the biggest Heroin Dealer in the World.
We seem to be doing a pretty good job of hiding the truth right now.
2007-08-25 13:15:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I definatley have thought this...
If you've noticed..every time we advertise that the troop casualities have declined this month, they shoot wayyyyyy up the following month... The media gives away way too much information about what's going on. If they blacked out all incoming news from the country...It mite help.. afterall.. if they have no idea what's going on around them other than what they can see.. they can't plan ahead..or retaliate against anything.
2007-08-29 20:53:29 · answer #6 · answered by hunnybblu 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A great question, but I dont think it will matter much in the bigger picture. As long as it takes, it takes. A god example is the Civil War that was fumbled for many years, but once the leadership got things moving in the right direction, progress was made.
2007-08-25 14:06:19 · answer #7 · answered by CrookedGrin35 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately we are the USA and have a constitutional ammendment for "freedom of the press" so they cannot be denied to "report" what they see (or dont see). However, our military commanders should refuse to allow them to be embedded which is what needs to happen. This leaves them at their own risk and might just limit some of the reporting.
2007-08-25 12:47:39 · answer #8 · answered by Coach 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think at times the media should confine themselves only to the facts and not opinion. I live in UK but Fox news is something of a joke if viewed on line. I'm not sure where they are trained. Are they trained by 90 year old ex Nazis or 70 years old Stalinists
2007-08-25 12:32:12 · answer #9 · answered by Scouse 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe that the general public should be kept informed on the goings on of the armed forces. But.. There should be a raine put on the media. The failed attempts to bomb Glasgow airport and London should of had minimal media coverage. That is what they want. To spread there terror to the public. The media should be held responsible for there actions. British and American soldiers liefs could be at risk in another part of the world, by the news we see in the papers and on the TV
2007-08-25 12:45:58 · answer #10 · answered by Gordon C 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Iraq and Afghanistan problems are created by USA and their interests.USA wants western culture and control oil resources of those countries.If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are allowed the way they want to live all problems will be solved.Terrorism will be eleminated.
2007-08-31 05:25:23 · answer #11 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋