Excuse any fuck ups in this post, it is a drunken post, so it may be quite the mess. I was talking to my grandmother the other day. Actually I have been talking to her a lot lately, my grandfather is in the hospital and I am her chauffeur.

Anyway, she lived through World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, and our modern wars. She brought up a point that I thought was interesting. That ever since we started witnessing the up close violence of war, starting with Vietnam, America has become more divided, and we have fought wars less effectively.

She relates this to Dresdan and, Hiroshima. Her point being that those sort of actions could never occur in the current world, because we would have to see the bloody aftermath. But not just us, the rest of the world would be looking at these images for decades if not centuries. And her point was, despite the fact that she believed these were neccasary actions, in which horrible crimes were commited in order to save millions of lives, they would not be allowed to happen again. And the US will probably never win a major war again because we all have to endure it first hand through media coverage.

She also brought up the point that we can never win a war, unless we are willing to fight a war on our enemies terms. That is why we lost Vietnam, that is why we will never accomplish anything in Iraq. Because we are fighting a media war, and that means trying to be as civil as possible, when our enemy is as brutal as the imagination can think up. As I think about it, she is right. This war would be over if we fought it as brutally as our enemies. Because we try and hold ourselves to a higher standard, we probably won't win.

Sounds like your grandmas been watching Apocalypse Now, I remember Kurtz says something like what you said in your last paragraph. Anyway I agree, the United States is a violent society which perpetuates violence around the world through its foreign policy, or lack thereof. We must come to terms with this or it will likely lead to our downfall as a civilized society. Invading nations doesn't really do much to help BTW.

That was not at all her point though. Her point was that we cannnot deal with the violence of war, despite that it is sometimes neccasary. The fact that we see the bloodied bodies, makes us repusled by the concept. We are more effected by the imagery of war, then by the ramifications of innaction. She was speaking of the reality outside of the violent imagery.

Just to give examples. People seeing westerners heads chopped off by a knife sickens them. Seeing innocent Iraqi's killed by American bombs sickens them. Seeing people plummet from the world trade center to their deaths sickens them. Terrorists though, embrace these images, and see them as victories for their cause. They will probably win for their lack of humanity, and the fact that we embrace humanity. The fact that we give a fuck, is why we may lose.

It is a shame your grandma missed the point that when the wars are illegal or for monetary gain the people can see the sham and don't like it.

I know you grandma is American but even she would probably say the Sadam was not a threat to America.

It is a shame when such a "great" country has to butt it's nose it to other affairs for the good of itself. How long do you think the world is about to put up with that kind of crap. It is your own fault for putting everything on the airwaves if you want to go in and eradicate a certain race from the planet.

If you think it is cool to watch cluster bombs blow the fuck out of somebody. You better think it is cool to watch somebody's head get lopped off. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

While I appreciate your grandmother's opinion I don't think you can accurately compare WWII to Vietnam and Iraq. They are very different scenarios, the main difference being that Vietnam and Iraq are viewed to have been conflicts that were unnecessary.

War is brutal no matter whether we see it or not. You don't think that Americans were fully aware of what war was like in Europe during WWII? The ships bringing home bodies by the thousands didn't make it sink in?

As for seeing the brutality of war now and that being a factor in not winning, I would say that we still don't see what really happens. Look at what we saw of Iraq, missle nose cams and guys riding in the rear on a tank. We didn't see the civilians getting blown up by those bombs or the actual action at the front of the advance. Arab TV stations did a better job of covering our invasion than our media.

Something else that refutes your arguement would be the first gulf war, that was won quickly and with extreme brutality. We took many prisoners but the war was stopped because of how we were slaughtering the Iraqi's as they ran back to baghdad.

Just based on the title of this thread, I wanted to let everyone know of a fantastic documentary called CONTROL ROOM. Some probably have seen it, as it's been out for some time now. I finally got a copy, and watched it a couple days ago, absolutely brilliant. Both sides are explored. The Marine who is part of the public affairs aspect comes of as a really cool, understanding guy. Who really wants to convince Arabs that they are here to do good. Yet, you have all the other motives that go into this war. But it focuses on the media and it's roll in war. 10/10, 5 stars, 2 thumbs way up for CONTROL ROOM!

what the fuck is an illegal war? is it one where the other party unto the war doesnt want to participate?

and to say america is the most violent is just plain silly. you have the good people in the sudan, former leader of Iraq, mislovec (sp), isreal and the rest of the middle east

Thats a good question, I would elaborate more but I don't have time



Its not. Its an argument many historians and scholars have been making since the 1960s. Our culture has an unusual obsession with violence, unlike any other in history. Of course its easy to say Iraq and Sudan, because they are lead by homicidal dictators. Its the people that make a society and culture.

Fixed.



I'm convinced now, more than ever, you were dropped as a child. The "people that make a society and culture" in the Congo were slicing pregnant women open and smashing unborn babies against walls long before you learned to regurgitate your bizzarro-communist pathos. To say our country is the most violent in the world is equivalent to saying France has the most cogent philosophy on underarm odor protection.

If you're going to use entertainment and media as an example of our "bloodlust", you'll find movies that open in America with violent content triple in illegal sales, legal distribution, and product endorsement in Europe and Asia. That is, we may make it, but everyone else buys it.

You continually attack American nationalism as if we were these barbarous knife-wielding nazi mutants, out to get the rest of the world a la golden arches, Wal-Mart and Hoggly fuckin Wogglies. I've yet to see you link a political science article, a political psychology journal, or any other document to provide some sense to your rambling angst-ridden incoherence.

And please, don't get me wrong, this isn't me getting mad because you disagree with me. I'm mad because I'm here for News and Debate, not a silly misinformed diatribe into the patriotic psyche of Billy Joe Americana. Like I've said before, it is this blantant misrepresentation of any given ideological thought that divides the country, the parties, and the people.

Please, please, PLEASE provide some sort of scholarly thought as to how America is the most violent nation of all.

You don't think invading another country at the cost of our own security and well-being is perpetuating violence? And not just this once, but probably half a dozen times in the last 50 years? Or building stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threatening to use them? As usual, you can't look past your own security and understanding to see thing differently.

so when was the last time we threatend to use nukes?

There's just no substitute for 24/7 news channels, and imbedded reporters, and photographers on the battlefield and al-jazeera and the internet.

I'm sure Americans knew war was a horrible thing in 1942. It would be stupid to assert otherwise. But there's just no way that fact could be hammered home without the kind of media blitzkrieg we have today.

For instance, you are a farmer in Iowa in 1942. Which is more likely to "hammer home" the brutality of war ... hearing a radio account of the ships bringing home the bodies of dead soldiers? Or actually seeing it with your own eyes about once an hour on CNN?

There's really no question. It's harder to fight a war and keep public opinion in this day and age. And maybe that's a good thing and maybe it's a bad thing. I won't get into that.

But the media DOES make it more difficult to prosecute a war in this day and age. That's just a fact.

I say granny's right, for better or worse.

And Granny is going to kick all of the asses of those that missed her point. She pissses on dead skulls for fun. Read my posts again, because I don't see where some of you are getting your comments from. I'm not going to restate what she said again for those that keep commenting on stuff that she didn't.