Welcome to Gaia! ::

I always hear of the bleeding heart liberals talking about how innocent civilians die in war. Do not misunderstand me I am not trying to say that it doesn't suck when civilians die, bad things happen in war, that is undisputed I am merely pointing out that instead of our military becoming more sadistic as some would like to argue I would say we are getting more humane.

I know this may seem a little off kilter so let me explain my reasoning. In World War II lacking sophisticated weapons systems we merely carpet bombed entire cities, that is to say we conciously levelled entire cities and all the civilians trying to going about thier daily lives along with those cities. An estimated 30,000,000 civilians died in WWII, we no longer use such wasteful and expensive tactics, during the war goods were rationed so that the military would have metal and tires and gasoline and food, our economy had to be entirely retooled to focus on the guns rather than the butter.

Now we have laser guided bombs that can strike within 10 feet of its intended target, ensuring that the target will probably be destroyed (assuming in case of a person that said person is where we believe they are) and much of the surrounding environment will be just fine

This:


Vs. This:


Our military has made great steps toward saving lives. Even in Vietnam we bombed entire villages, we just don't do that any more, why? Well we are more concious of how our actions define who we are, mass murder of civilians is no longer acceptable.

I know the concept of civilian casualties ever being deemed acceptable seems a little wierd, so let me explain... the public has never tolerated the destruction of entire cities just to get a few military leaders, but now as a result of what is reffered to as the CNN effect the section we screw up were paraded across the tickers and headlines of the world making us out to evil warmongerers out to destroy everybody.

How many times have you seen the news covering something we did right? Offhand I cannot think of a single occurance right now, is it because we are just total bloodthirsty screw ups who want to shoot anything that moves? I don't think so, in the media it seems that good news is actually bad news, so when we do something good the media stays silent because its nothing that they can hold against us.

But whenever a network rises up and tries to report about the good things our military does they are immediately shunned and proclaimed to be biased. Yes, I am reffering to Fox News, it seems that if CNN says its not so, then you can bet the farm that its not true. I ask you, do we really want to trust the biggest news network in the world that much? That because CNN didn't say it, that it didn't happen.

I don't know about you but I don't trust any one network enough to take complete stock in what they are saying, why is that? Because News networks are corporations too, they will omit the things that will be bad for business.

If it bleeds, it leads.

Who wants a story about how we didn't kill people? Viewers would rather see we killed a lot of people then scream about how some were civilians.

for a time are army used to use total war strategy wich the whole concept is to target the civilian population are army does just oposite now, when ever it did target civilians it helped save lives in the long run tho, by killing 100,000 in hiroshima and 90,000 in nagasaki 5-10 million were saved from the continuation of the war, and when gen. Sherman burnt Georgia to the gound it shaved at least a year of Americas deadliest war.

The thing is, it isn't FOX's war coverage that makes them seem like horribly biased pathetic excuses for journalists, it's their ludicrous coverage of home issues. I mean, the whole lapel pin thing with Obama? That's just not the hallmark of an objective, responsible news source. And that's far from an isolated incident.



Exactly.


Anyways, you're right that civilian casualties are being minimized by modern technology, but that's kind of beside the point when it's a war that shouldn't even be fought. Not getting involved in stupid wars saves more lives than expensive military technology.

Not really, people are more forgiving of any causalities if the war is "popular." Since the Iraq war is very unpopular, people will take any reason to get out of it.

It is all about the popularity of it though Twizted, since the war isnt popular, then the pro's of it will not be portrayed, while the con's are exaggerated to make them seem more in touch with the community. All about the ratings. People will not watch a certain program if it doesnt agree with their personal opinions. New channels are not biased, but are very effective strategists, using polls and other sources of information to try and appeal to the widest audience, thus getting a higher rating.

How is it wrong? People will say more negatives about an unpopular war. All that you have said is if you dislike something, you still have to admit that it happens. If that was you're point, you're a herring.