"Can America win a sustained war in this media age?" - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #1 01-23-2007, 06:24 AM

OK, I admit its not an original title, but we haven't discussed it.
Can you seperate your views on the present Iraq war, and your views of the President and Congress and answer the question in an objective manner?

So we are not discussing the Iraq war, but ANY war that lasts more than, say 2 years. With the daily death count on 24/7 TV are we, as a culture, able to sustain a costly war? What type of provocation would it require?

For me, I think we cannot sustain the effort short of the destruction of several major cities by a foreign power. We have raised generations of pacifiers and pacifists. We have taught our young people that " war is never the answer" and other such pablum--tehy can't even play competive sports because someone might lose!. We think we can simply negotiate and "they" will leave us alone. We have been conditioned by our addiction to all forms of entertainment that if "conflict resolution" doesn't work, that a single hero will step up, and take care of the bad guys, all within a 2-4 hour time-frame.

If there are powers in this world who want to kill us badly enough, I believe they will suceed.

What do you think?

LaRondo · #2 01-23-2007, 06:31 AM

I think ... you wouldn't really want to know, it would be too devastating.

Actually, theer is an interesting twist in that message, a twist I have never thought of, yet it only confirms what I always felt. This media is destructive. It doesn't matter through which means, the outcome is the same.

As far as sustainability of the war goes, my answer is: NO!
For that there's evidence enough throughout history, even a blind person can see.

Ara T. · #3 01-23-2007, 06:36 AM

How many soldiers have we lost so far? 3,000? How many do we have over there? 100,000?

I always wondered about that. We really haven't lost that many troops, I think the preachers speaking of doom and gloom and the fall of the US and such have a greater effect than the numbers themselves...how many people do we lose every year driving around on the highway? 45,000 or so I believe just to put it in perspective.

I certainly don't support this war though, at least not the way they sold it to the public. If people's lives are at stake I wish politicians would just tell the truth and give specifics instead of rhetoric and generic statements.

I'm just trying to figure out why people think the US is failing so horribly at combating these terrorists, agitators, mercenaries, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them.

LaRondo · #4 01-23-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ara T.

How many soldiers have we lost so far? 3,000? How many do we have over there? 100,000?

I always wondered about that. We really haven't lost that many troops, I think the preachers speaking of doom and gloom and the fall of the US and such have a greater effect than the numbers themselves...how many people do we lose every year driving around on the highway? 45,000 or so I believe just to put it in perspective.

I certainly don't support this war though, at least not the way they sold it to the public. If people's lives are at stake I wish politicians would just tell the truth.

I'm just trying to figure out why people think the US is failing so horribly at combating these terrorists, agitators, mercenaries, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them.

I tell you what:
If we ever stopped counting up on other humans' lives, we might get a different view on things.

In a way it's really so ridiculous ...."Oh, it's not so bad, it's only xyzThousand, well, if it were zyxThousand that would be really bad...but....

Failure is not only reflected in numbers of lost soldiers .... but then again, that's the way the media makes it look like....

3K, wow let's look at WW2, man we're doing real great...

raymr · #5 01-23-2007, 08:36 AM

In terms of the human toll of war, you need to also consider the guys that are coming back without eyeballs or legs. The deaths are bad enough, but the permanently disabled are a long-term reminder of the price we pay. Regardless of what happens, I hope everyone continues to respect our servicemen over there, whether you agree with the official administration line or not. Nothing would be worse that the post-Vietnam indifference we had as a nation.

But if you put it all in perspective, the total number of personnel in Iraq at one time would just about fill a modern football stadium. It makes you wonder how we can really accomplish anything big over there considering the size of the country and the mode of fighting.

Botnst · #6 01-23-2007, 08:44 AM

The media is doing it's job when it does straight reporting. It does a disservice to everybody when the reporter editorializes.

B

aklim · #7 01-23-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The media is doing it's job when it does straight reporting.

It does a disservice to everybody when the reporter editorializes.

B

True.

How often do they do the former with respect to the latter?

GottaDiesel · #8 01-23-2007, 09:27 AM

The difference isn't in the number of dead. One person dead - and it probably doesn't matter to many -- except the their loved ones.

WWII and Iraq. Come on now. You're comparing a real war -- that we won -- and had a plan from the start. To this "joke" called Iraq. Those who died in WWII died for a cause that was valid. Those who died in "Iraq - The war on terror or freedom, or whatever we call it today" have died for not one good reason.

Mistress · #9 01-23-2007, 09:53 AM

Don't believe everything you read. Don Hennley said it best :"We love dirty laundry, kick them when their up, kick them when their down."

raymr · #10 01-23-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

The difference isn't in the number of dead. One person dead - and it probably doesn't matter to many -- except the their loved ones.

WWII and Iraq. Come on now. You're comparing a real war -- that we won -- and had a plan from the start. To this "joke" called Iraq. Those who died in WWII died for a cause that was valid. Those who died in "Iraq - The war on terror or freedom, or whatever we call it today" have died for not one good reason.

This is in one way a continuation of WWII, a fallout of the decision to place Israel in the mideast. If you listen to the enemy, that's what their major beef is about. So the conflict has transformed from a military one to a religious one. You can't win a religious war with military might unless its overwhelming and complete. We have nothing to offer them in their religious realm besides "freedom" of religion, and it's very hard, maybe impossible, to secularize a society that's been set in its ways for 1000 years.

If we could just divorce ourselves from mideast oil, we could abandon that hornet's nest. Of course, that leaves Israel...

MS Fowler · #11 01-23-2007, 10:13 AM

I was trying to divorce this from IOraq and current events. Please comment on the question in the abstract, and not as a way to show your opposition to the current President, or Congress.

aklim · #12 01-23-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

You can't win a religious war with military might unless its overwhelming and complete.

If we could just divorce ourselves from mideast oil, we could abandon that hornet's nest.

Of course, that leaves Israel...

As Capt Picard says on Star Trek TNG: Make it so

How? Mideast oil will affect us even if we don't buy one drop of it. Not like it is a buyer's market.

So?

raymr · #13 01-23-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I was trying to divorce this from IOraq and current events. Please comment on the question in the abstract, and not as a way to show your opposition to the current President, or Congress.

The 'instant media' requires greater accountability and honesty. I think if the admin is honest with the people regarding whats to gain and whats to lose, an extended war is still possible. It would force us to take a harder look at who we are, what we represent, and what our true wants and needs are. People will need to understand that the kinds of mistakes and fumbling they see live and real-time were often swept under the rug and forgotten in wars past.

Hatterasguy · #14 01-23-2007, 11:03 AM

No, you would have to control the media coverage like they did in WW2 to fight such a war again. Really this generation doesn't know a real war, simple as that, very few of us alive today save people that were around in the 40's know what its like. Black outs, rationing, not being able to buy a new car for years, gas rationing. This war does not affect us at home. My point is I don't think today's media will let us ever fight such a war again. Remember control the media control the public. CNN would have there daily bashers coming on screaming about how its bad, all in an effort to get ratings.

What about a real battle? Like WW1 when we lose 50k people in a day. How would CNN cover that can you imagin? I have some sick picture in my head of them covering it like a sports game. With a live counter on the screen for how many people we lost. And arm chair critics and generals giving us the play by play.

I will not judge in this post whether this is a good or bad thing, this is simply the way I see it.

Control the media, control the mind people will buy what they are told they should.

GermanStar · #15 01-23-2007, 11:07 AM

It has been more then 60 years since the U.S. was engaged in war that actually involved our national defense. In the face of a genuine threat, we could sustain and win a war, yes, and I believe we could do so with great zeal, as was the case 60+ years ago.