Going to War

[civiltech]

Hello all.

Just interested in people opinions, gripes, or information!

I've noticed lately on CNN (The big American Media channel) that the US is preparing for war. It's interesting to watch the same Iraq headlines on CTV, or BBC International with a different perspective. It seems that CNN percieves itself to be indifferent, and approach topics with a 'media ethic.' Yet everything covered, or commented on talks about "if" or "when" war breaks out..and polls showing Americans support war come hell or high water. There are an endless list of experts, and retired generals calmly explaining the best way to attack, and the enemy's strengths, and weaknesses.

I don't mean to sound stereotypical, and certainly I don't want to anger anyone..but it's hard not to roll ones eyes yet again as a country gears for war. Don't get me wrong! I am not against an attack against Iraq if the arms investigations fail. In fact I will sleep much better knowing one less country has nukes, or the such. It's just that I'm alarmed at the 'slant' American Media continually takes when reporting on issues like this. It is like there is no opposition. I see the opposition as just reporting a different aspect of the same position it is supposed to be critical of.

I could ramble on, but I welcome a response, or clarification if I seem totally off the ball!

Regards,

[veeco]

I'm not going to post my opinion on this. There has been a lot of debates on this in an earlier thread.

However, I would like to make a prediction. We'll see if I am wrong or not.

I predict that this thread will have more than a 100 posts in it.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

There has already been a long thread on this as Veeco points out.

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthr...highlight=Iraq



And Veeco, there were 111 replies on that thread.

[Zelda]

I was going to keep silent but I can no longer. These "polls" which are conducted by the new organisations have a couple of major flaws..
1. Response Bias (you only reply if you feel passionate about it...this is why I never believe phone in polls)
2. Survey Bias (did they get a random sample of the whole population or are they showing Response bias (see 1)).

as for the war thing, well personally in Australia there isnt that much of it. A news story or two about weapons inspectors etc but thats about it. Personally, I honestly think that we should just let the inspectors get on with thier job and not pre empt their findings in any way. Once they have or have not found somehting THEN maybe we act....not before....

[Moonitic]

As far as the media goes...

Okay, maybe I shouldn't say. After all, they will be the ones who review my books, interview me, etc.

But here goes: They write more fiction than I do! They LIVE for this stuff!

There...that's said. Not too much, but just enough to get the point across.

[epeefencer74]

There isn't much information about the war build up in the US here in Singapore. It seems that news covered here focuses more on what Bush and Blair are saying. No opinioin polls results are made available here either.

[civiltech]

I believe Moonitic is right 110%. The Media posts a lot of colourful fiction.

I don't believe that one thread should be for this discussion, and then let it drift into internet history. I would hope this is a continual discussion, and other threads start as well.

About a month ago, I attended a seminar (political) in which a great deal was allocated to Media relations. The major points included the fact that the media doesn't like to report the news. Lets face it...the news...what goes on today....is boring. Journalists are business people as well...and to sell there work, or stay employed......would you rather report on the Minister of Natural Resources stance on the Kyoto Accord, or the Softwood lumber dispute, OR that he got into a heated arguement with the Prime Minister, and that there MAYBE problems in the government caucas (EXAMPLE ONLY) I would say this is in all media....yet getting back to the american media....

When the WTC fell....eery five minutes we watched the planes hit...and then the towers fall....why? Was it that important to see it every 5 minutes? As I heard one American say on a trip down there..."There are replaying it to get Americans more and more angry. It will be easier for us to go to war." It's not the war I have a problem with...it's the fact that we are led down the garden path by being lulled into whatever popular media wishes to report.

I would hope there is some more insigth from others on this.

[civiltech]

Would you disagree that popular media in the States doesn't invite violence, and popularize war? Even the UN has politely corrected the US recently in when it can legally attack Iraq. Legally, I can't still can't believe that term used with war. Go figure!

I would have to disagree with your previous statement regarding the WTC, yet I agree with your initial statement on the Pacific Rim.
I would agree that by continually exposing people to violence and images of war that they will grow accustomed to it, and accept it more readily.

[Zelda]

But does that still give the US a mandate to go out guns blazing? It was for this reason that the UN was formed after WWII. As for the Pacific Rim - Well I think we deal with each other quite well. Only in Bouganville and East Timor can I think of some other countries armies being needed to tidy up/keep the peace. As for Journalists, well I spent ALOT of time with an Indian journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. when I was in England. He didnt exzagreate (I know I spelt that wrong) but always took an "interesting" view on life.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by civiltech
Would you disagree that popular media in the States doesn't invite violence, and popularize war?

I'm a little confused by this and other statements you made relating to the media. Are you suggesting a purpose in media reports to incite violence and rally Americans to war, or are you merely stating that sensationalist media reports are having that effect?

Even the UN has politely corrected the US recently in when it can legally attack Iraq.

Actually, not yet they haven't. The issue has not been resolved. The U.S. still contends that it has the right to attack Iraq without U.N. support. Whether it will do so or not will of course depend on what actions Iraq takes in response to the existing Resolution and the reaction of the U.N., among a number of other considerations.

Legally, I can't still can't believe that term used with war. Go figure!

That's at least part of the reason we have the U.N. Without the threat of the use of force, what incentive is there for recalcitrant dictators to comply with international law?

--Philistine

[Gav]

The massive restrictions placed upon the UN are an artifact of the initial charter which constrains it's power or ability to act decisively and quickly. Basically the individual nations that formed the UN were worried about the power that such a huge body could wield if it was armed, hence no UN army. The US doesn't have the right to attack with impunity because:

1. That has far reaching implications for the US - you reap what you sow...

2. It signed up to the UN charter.

3. This new found (newly enhanced?) paranoia as result of 9/11 is unhealthy.

4. There are other nations on the planet and they might have concerns about a US that thinks it can dictate to the rest of the world.

Also

<b>Would you disagree that popular media in the States doesn't invite violence, and popularize war?</b>

to which Philistine replied:

<b>I'm a little confused by this and other statements you made relating to the media. Are you suggesting a purpose in media reports to incite violence and rally Americans to war, or are you merely stating that sensationalist media reports are having that effect?</b>

My answer to your question is - possibly. The term you are looking for is Jingoism. Which in the UK is particularly prevalent in the 'adult comics' (sorry I mean tabloids although the broadsheets can be just as guilty). From what I've seen of US news it tends to portray things in a very biased (ie towards the US) slant and not take too much notice of the rest of the world. Incidentally the support from the UK that the US is getting is based on the replies from our esteemed MP's and Prime Minister, just about every poll has placed the British public as being against the war with Iraq.

[Inquartata]

OTOH, the media dote on providing coverage of every peace or antiwar protest march or protest, even if it consists of twelve people outside a city hall in Peoria. How many pro-war demonstrations have you seen reported, though? The net effect of this is to give the impression that the former attitude predominates among the public at large, when in fact quite the opposite is true....

Moreover, when it comes to editorializing, there is a distinct tendency to interview experts, officials and celebrities of various sorts who are opposed to the war disproportionately to those who support it. And more often than not the anchors/interviewers seem themselves more sympathetic to the antiwar authorities.

[civiltech]

In response to Philistine's earlier posting:



With regards to yoru question concerning the intent of popular media:

It does instate a certain mindset in American culture, helping the country go to war. This is not the purpose of popular media, but I do question what motives always slant popular media this way. I refuse to believe that an entire country can only think one way!

Your second point:

Yes..The UN has notified the USA that they cannot attack Iraq. Again, proving my point about US popular media. CNN did report for about 1/2 a day that the UN Secretary General corrected George Bush about when and why he can used armed forces against Irag. Georges date were a little premature. This was not on the air for long. It did recieve quite the time on CBC here in Canada though.

Your third point:

Just because the US congress has given the president the authority to attack Iraw, does not make it internation policy. That is govenerd by the UN. To an extent the US IS the UN! There is no arguing that!! But nonetheless, US policy is not always UN policy. I believe what I;m dancing around is that the US is the strongest country in the world both economically, and military...and like everything else in this world, he who has the might, makes the rules.

Your forth point:

The reason of the UN is not to threaten action whenever someone gets out of line. I don't have the website, but the UN mandate can be found on the UN's website...I will check some search engine for that! Again, getting past what popular media tells us, military action is a last resort. The UN is trying to hold back the US while the proper course is taken. If the UN threatened military action on a whim, well...it's a slippery slope. NO longer in the United Nations.....well a bunch of United Nations.....its just a nother beaurocratic dictatorship.. Let's remember that Iraw is a member of the UN now too!

This response is not meant to be confrontational. Just responding. I do however appreciate the very knowledgeable poeple who seem to post here. Thank you for informing me.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by civiltech
{snip}
Your second point:

Yes..The UN has notified the USA that they cannot attack Iraq. Again, proving my point about US popular media. CNN did report for about 1/2 a day that the UN Secretary General corrected George Bush about when and why he can used armed forces against Irag. Georges date were a little premature. This was not on the air for long. It did recieve quite the time on CBC here in Canada though.

We may be talking about different things here. The UN Secretary General's statements do not necessarily reflect the position of the UN or the Security Council. While I am fairly sure that--at least at present--a U.S. attack without Security Council approval would be considered by the UN to be a violation of the charter--I am dubious that the UN has made any official pronouncement of this to the US.

While I personally agree that a U.S. attack without Security Council approval would be a violation of the UN Charter, there are those in the administration who disagree for a number of technical reasons.

Your third point:

Just because the US congress has given the president the authority to attack Iraw, does not make it internation policy. That is govenerd by the UN. To an extent the US IS the UN! There is no arguing that!! But nonetheless, US policy is not always UN policy. I believe what I;m dancing around is that the US is the strongest country in the world both economically, and military...and like everything else in this world, he who has the might, makes the rules.

I don't necessarily disagree with this--but see my response above.

Your forth point:

The reason of the UN is not to threaten action whenever someone gets out of line. I don't have the website, but the UN mandate can be found on the UN's website...I will check some search engine for that! Again, getting past what popular media tells us, military action is a last resort. The UN is trying to hold back the US while the proper course is taken. If the UN threatened military action on a whim, well...it's a slippery slope. NO longer in the United Nations.....well a bunch of United Nations.....its just a nother beaurocratic dictatorship.. Let's remember that Iraw is a member of the UN now too!

UN Charter

In particular note:

Chapter VI

Article 33
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

* * *

Chapter VII

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

* * *

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

While I agree that threatened military action on a whim is not a good thing--the UN's reaction to Iraq's refusal to comply with previous UN Resolutions relating to the responsibilities to which it agreed after the Gulf War is hardly whimsical.

I was (and remain) opposed to unilateral US action against Iraq. However, I do think that upon a material failure to live up to the current resolution, an attack which is sanctioned by the UN would be warranted.

This response is not meant to be confrontational. {snip}

I didn't take it to be so. Intersting discussion.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

There's something interesting here:

Chapter VI

Article 33
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Note that it states that the parties to a dispute "shall, first of all, seek a solution by...peaceful means...". But like the Biblical injunction to "turn the other cheek" it does not specifically prohibit unilateral action should those "peaceful means" be deemed inadequate or exhausted....

I would think therefore that technically a case could be made for military intervention.

[Rayen]

I think you're going to win your bet, Veeco.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Zelda

as for the war thing, well personally in Australia there isnt that much of it. A news story or two about weapons inspectors etc but thats about it. Personally, I honestly think that we should just let the inspectors get on with thier job and not pre empt their findings in any way. Once they have or have not found somehting THEN maybe we act....not before....

The idea is to have a threat backing up the weapons inspectors. Since the end of the first Gulf War, the UN has been trying to get weapons inspectors into Iraq, and Saddam's palaces. They never turned anything up. Why?

1. Half the time, a large man with a pistol simply turned them away at the door - would not let them in.

2. If they ever were eventually let in, it was weeks later after many large and suspicious looking vehicles including transports, trucks, etc. - and even occasionally trains - had come through. Any number of things could have been taken out.

3. Many times they were restricted from large areas of the palaces.

4. If Saddam ever got cranky, he'd simply throw the lot of them out of Iraq altogether.


The idea behind the current state of things is to guarantee that inspectors actually get in, unrestricted.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by civiltech

When the WTC fell....eery five minutes we watched the planes hit...and then the towers fall....why? Was it that important to see it every 5 minutes? As I heard one American say on a trip down there..."There are replaying it to get Americans more and more angry. It will be easier for us to go to war." It's not the war I have a problem with...it's the fact that we are led down the garden path by being lulled into whatever popular media wishes to report.

I would hope there is some more insigth from others on this.

As it has been said: Media is a business. The more people watch their channel, the more money they make. Americans (and probably a lot of people) like to see what's currently going on - and what's action-packed/dramatic/horrifying/whatever. So the media delivers whatever the people seem most interested in, or what they anticipate the people will be interested in.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by civiltech
Would you disagree that popular media in the States doesn't invite violence, and popularize war? Even the UN has politely corrected the US recently in when it can legally attack Iraq. Legally, I can't still can't believe that term used with war. Go figure!

Umm...is it just me, or did the UN Security Council unanimously pass a resolution last week saying that if Iraq doesn't comply completely with everything, they'll let the US lead a force in? It's not just US policy anymore, it is UN policy now. And any attack now won't be unilateral.