- This topic has 4 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
What are some of the differences in the spirit of America and Americans' resolve during WWll and this current War? Back then kids and young men were lined up at the recruiter signing up, citizens were willing to make sacrifices, etc. Quite a big difference than what it is now. Could one of the reasons be because we didn't analyze WWll until after it was over? We fought first, then talked about it later.
That and we saw a clearly defined enemy and could measure his advancement by seeing wherever his armies went. Our enemies today are not as clearly defined and we cannot exactly see where they are entrenched or where they are advancing to. Our current enemies hide and therefore remain just on the edge of American perception…..and the longer they holdout in the shadows, the harder it is for Americans to retain their resolve in this conflict. Sad but true.
I agree with what Donnie said. We're not fighting a conventional war as in ages past. There is no direct possibility of us being occupied by a foreign army as there was during WWII. The real threat is one of terrorism, or the surprise attack on civilian populations producing a great psychological effect. I think the threat of some potential catastrophe from an unseen force is far less tangible than the threat of some occupation by a sovereign nation. The enemy fights sporadically, yet fiercely. The enemy can use a tactic of waiting - something that we cannot do. If we wait without progress, public support falters which causes financial/political support to be less consistent.Our current military activities are also taking place against a polarized partisan political landscape, something which I don't think was nearly as severe in 40s as it is today. Any misstep by the administration will lead to blame by the opposition. Add to this the general media bias against the administration or its ideals. Don't get me wrong, though - I don't think the administration has done everything correctly and has made some judgment errors.
To add to this, as Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview I was watching yesterday, there will be no surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. The insurgents seem to be guerilla in many ways – in their tactics, in their organization, in their political strategy. I think this takes away the satisfaction of the traditional victor.
Political correctness as well. This country did not have that 60 years ago. People are so afraid of offending the sensitivities of others that they question, always in a negative manner any decision thats made regarding other cultures or races. Not that we shouldn't be consdierate of that, but it seems to be the first thing considered. When in reality morals, principles and agenda's should be considered before what color is your skin or what religion are you.
That and we saw a clearly defined enemy and could measure his advancement by seeing wherever his armies went. Our enemies today are not as clearly defined and we cannot exactly see where they are entrenched or where they are advancing to.
That's true. But what about progress that can be clearly seen, but is not reported or just completely ignored? The media, being against recent wars by either ignoring good news or harping on the bad, surely wasn't like this during WW2. That most certainly affects the American spirit and resolve.
You know I think touching on the media is really important. As you say, harping on bad news or ignoring good news should really be considered when the history books are written. I have been thinking that Iraq might be the first conflict to be won or lost in the media, although I'm sure that there have probably been other conflicts in the past that have also been greatly affected.William Randolph Hearst was on to something when he decided to "make" a war in his newspaper if a war didn't materialize in truth. Public perception can clearly sway the public's perception of reality. I'm not going to say right here that deliberate misinformation has been disseminated by the media, but rather it has been colored by the eyes of the media's own bias.
William Randolph Hearst was on to something when he decided to “make” a war in his newspaper if a war didn't materialize in truth. Public perception can clearly sway the public's perception of reality. I'm not going to say right here that deliberate misinformation has been disseminated by the media, but rather it has been colored by the eyes of the media's own bias.
I will. There was a concerted effort on the part of the media to bring the Bush administration down by constantly focusing in on the negative images of the war in order to fatigue the American war support. The constant saturation of negative images will work on those who do not bother to look into alternative sources who are showing the other side. The visual media (television) still holds a considerable amount of power with the unsuspecting general American public. The NY Times and the news networks were all on the same page in their focus.....to paint Bush's policies as failures. 😡
On the other hand I have read articles and watched programs where soldiers are saying it's worse then what we are seeing over there and I don't think this is the first time this has happened. When the Vietnam vets came home and told of the horrors many did not believe what they were hearing. And watching the old news reels about WW2 they were heavily candy coated.
I think that's just reality of war. Of course it's worse. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be in the humvee behind the one that blew up, and I'd rather not see that stuff anyway. (like the terrorist snipers CNN aired)I agree with Don too, the media knows what they're doing. How can they not? The question I ask is, why? 😡
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
