1 edit
During World War Two. the press in democratic countries censored themselves as well as submitting to military censorship. Bad news such as desertions, mutinies and setbacks were suppressed, and military successes were exaggerated. The press was seen as a part of the military effort, and truth was subverted in the interests of maintaining morale and fighting spirit.
WWII had a definite end, with the surrender of the defeated states. The present war on terrorism is unlikely to have a definite end point - there will be no signing of surrender terms. Any change in press behaviour will be just as open ended.
Should the press in countries with troops commited censor themselves as they did in WWII? Should facts which show the action of troops in a poor light be suppressed? And are they are already doing this?
Originally posted by steerpiketo answer your questions i think the press should be out of the war torn countries altogether. they got one of my good friends badly injured... but of course you wont see that in the news. if the press were gone then we could get on with doing our job instead of saying hi to mom every once in a while.
During World War Two. the press in democratic countries censored themselves as well as submitting to military censorship. Bad news such as desertions, mutinies and setbacks were suppressed, and military successes were exaggerated. The press was seen as a part of the military effort, and truth was subverted in the interests of maintaining morale and fightin ...[text shortened]... ch show the action of troops in a poor light be suppressed? And are they are already doing this?
1 edit
edit... we are not censoring enough, but we are censoring on the american networks to make our cause look more noble. pm me if you have any questionsactually when i look at it i really did not answer you questions. ill make a second attempt. i do think the press should censor thier coverage of the battles. most civilians dont want to see that crap. right now i think they might censor some things such as position and maybe some casualties, but they get in the way far more than they report the news....
mike
I think we should be shown the intricate details of war.
Let's see a woman holding her beheaded baby.
Let's see that man crawling over the street, using his arms because his legs have been blown off.
Let's see the soldier shaking with fits as his body goes into shock with his insides hanging out.
Let's see the details and let's see how many people still have the stomach to support war over diplomacy.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou honestly think all wars can be avoided by talking?
I think we should be shown the intricate details of war.
Let's see a woman holding her beheaded baby.
Let's see that man crawling over the street, using his arms because his legs have been blown off.
Let's see the soldier shaking with fits as his body goes into shock with his insides hanging out.
Let's see the details and let's see how many people still have the stomach to support war over diplomacy.
I wish that were the case, but it isn't true.
Kelly
Originally posted by shavixmirOkay, I guess maybe what you want is worse. The need for war may
Did I say that?
be real, but you want to cut the support for it? Which would be setting
one's own side or country up for failure. I may be reading your point
wrong again please enlighten me as to what you mean.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's a lot of warmongers out there. A lot of arm-chair generals and a lot of people who think that war is going in and saving people.
Okay, I guess maybe what you want is worse. The need for war may
be real, but you want to cut the support for it? Which would be setting
one's own side or country up for failure. I may be reading your point
wrong again please enlighten me as to what you mean.
Kelly
Diplomacy is in most cases a far better and longer lasting alternative than war. Take the war in Iraq as an example.
If people knew what it really is like. If people know what true blood shed and pain is, I have a feeling their support for this measure will decrease significantly. At least their judgements would be based on reality, instead of a gung-ho politician blowing his mouth off.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are viewing war from the armchair yourself here. You honestly
There's a lot of warmongers out there. A lot of arm-chair generals and a lot of people who think that war is going in and saving people.
Diplomacy is in most cases a far better and longer lasting alternative than war. Take the war in ...[text shortened]... on reality, instead of a gung-ho politician blowing his mouth off.
think if people knew about the horror of war there would be less of
it? You are forgetting that many times wars are fought because of
the horrors people are doing in peace. Diplomacy against an
invader has proven a good deterrent how many times in the course
of human history? I'm not sure whom you are referring to when it
comes o a gung-ho-politican blowing off his mouth. You will have to
give examples of this not just some generic description of some Rep
or some Dem doing it. Links so we can see things in contents would
be quite nice.
I'm not going to defend the war in Iraq because I felt it was a bad
idea. I understand the reasoning given, but didn't feel it was enough
with what I understood to be true. Given the fact no WMD were found
the reasoning for it have been left lacking in my opinion. That was
not the topic; however, you were speaking of war in a generic since.
Which led me to believe you feel war is never a good thing. If that
was the case I disagree.
To look at Iraq if we discovered that one or more of the countries at
Iraq's borders are funding and training all the murders and
kidnappings in that country, do you think talks alone would be the
response that would cause the other country to stop? Some time the
threat of war may be enough, but one cannot make that threat if one
isn't ready to do it. We are now heavily in Iraq's debt in my opinion
since we destroyed what held that country together, we need to be
committed to helping them restore their own stability, so they can
stand on their own two feet without us.
Kelly
Originally posted by shavixmirI am not criticisng the press, either in WW2 or now. If the British press was honest in 1940 - 41 as to badly things were going and reflected and advanced the view a compromise wih Hitler was possible, probably the Dutch would be posting here in the German language.
I think we should be shown the intricate details of war.
Let's see a woman holding her beheaded baby.
Let's see that man crawling over the street, using his arms because his legs have been blown off.
Let's see the soldier shaking with fits as his body goes into shock with his insides hanging out.
Let's see the details and let's see how many people still have the stomach to support war over diplomacy.
Printing the triuth in 1941 would have been regarded as aiding and abetting the enemy. Is there a case for requiring similar censorship on the war in Iraq now?
Originally posted by KellyJayGood point. Should the press be telling Americans this is not a local insurgency at all, Iraqis are prevented from dancing in the streets and giving flowers to GIs by evil Al-Quada foreiners, and all will be well when we invade Iran?
.
To look at Iraq if we discovered that one or more of the countries at
Iraq's borders are funding and training all the murders and
kidnappings in that country, do you think talks alone would be the
response that would cause the other country to stop? Some time the
threat of war may be enough, but one cannot make that threat if one
isn't ready to ...[text shortened]... them restore their own stability, so they can
stand on their own two feet without us.
Kelly
Or should they tell the truth?
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirYou cannot use diplomacy with the militant Islamists....their diplomacy is in the Quran...and it relegates no diplomacy to infidels...but I do understand your reasoning that maybe if more people saw the brutality of war instead of the romanticism...maybe we would desire less of it...😉
I think we should be shown the intricate details of war.
Let's see a woman holding her beheaded baby.
Let's see that man crawling over the street, using his arms because his legs have been blown off.
Let's see the soldier shaking ...[text shortened]... many people still have the stomach to support war over diplomacy.
Originally posted by steerpikeWhat truth would that be?
Good point. Should the press be telling Americans this is not a local insurgency at all, Iraqis are prevented from dancing in the streets and giving flowers to GIs by evil Al-Quada foreiners, and all will be well when we invade Iran?
Or should they tell the truth?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou said "To look at Iraq if we discovered that one or more of the countries at Iraq's borders are funding and training all the murders and kidnappings in that country ". The implication you are making is the insurgency is not coming from the Iraqi people at all.
What truth would that be?
This position is ridiculous. No guerilla army can operate without the support of local people. But I admire you for standing up for your country, even when what you are saying makes no sense.
Are you making this stuff all by yourself or is this what your local paper is saying?
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeI'm not making it up and the connections between several of the
You said "To look at Iraq if we discovered that one or more of the countries at Iraq's borders are funding and training all the murders and kidnappings in that country ". The implication you are making is the insurgency is not coming ...[text shortened]... stuff all by yourself or is this what your local paper is saying?
groups responsible for making sure the Iraqi infrastructures are kept
in disarray are foreign. It isn't a secret a brief review of many articles
covering many of the attacks against both the coalition forces, and the
Iraqi people you see this. The most recent kidnapping of American
and British workers have an al-Qaida link I'll give you two links to
read if your trully interested. The volume of information is quite large
if you did start to do your own research on the matter.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&cat=news
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1282215,00.html
I also agree that there is support from among the Iraqi people as
well, but why would that surprise you? There were several people there
that lost power the Bath party and so on, moreover the people were
greatly oppressed as well before the war. It wasn't like they had the
will to stand against the Bath party before, it is something they have
to do now though or another power similar in nature will spring up.
Then having electrical power and water, along with many of the basic
necessities taken away during the struggle there is bound to create
hard feelings. The struggle now is rebuilding of the country, the
restoration of electricity and water keeps getting disrupted. The killing
of Iraqi people trying to get jobs, all of this is not war being waged
against the Iraqi people by American or the coalition forces, that war is
over. The war being waged now is the rebuilding of the Iraqi
government and infrastructure so that the Iraqi people have the basic
necessities of life.
Nationalism alone is going to bring some of thie hate about. There is
no doubt everyone is not going to be happy about coalition forces
being there, but if they left I would imagine a great blood bath would
begin. Far worse than it is going on now as people and nations divide
up the country. The struggle over there now is far more complex than
just the hate Bush crowd give it credit for. The Iraq war is over, the war
or struggle to rebuild Iraq is what is being fought now, and since we
have destroyed much of what held that country together is is only
fitting that we stick it out to rebuild it. So they can send us on our
merry way later when the Iraqi people vote into power whoever they
want as leaders.
Kelly