• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War-weary US is numbed to drumbeat of troop deaths

Has America become numb to troop deaths in Afghanistan


  • Total voters
    21
I don't think people are numb to the ongoing war and the increased United States military deaths in Afghanistan, it is just that it is not getting much coverage by the media and there are none of the protests against war that happened during the Bush administration. If (just for the sake of this subject being discussed) McCain won in 2008, I think most of the media would have made a very big deal if U.S. military losses had increased on his watch. And in case you didn't know, that is what has happened since Obama has been President---we have had increased losses in Afghanistan, yet, you don't really hear much about it. On one hand the economy needs to be covered amongst other things, however, again, based on the media coverage and anti-war protests during the Bush years, there is something wrong here.
 
When has the US not been at war? At least they don't fight serious nations. So the wars are never too big, meaning they cost a lot of American lives. If they did, perhaps the people will care.
 
Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is an entirely different issue. Fact is, it IS the law, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. Funny how some pretend to be strict constructionists.........when it suits them. :shrug:

there are many laws that are on the books that have never been challenged. This one would be hard to challenge because of the money factor.

Remember even the constitution said that blacks were only two third citizens.. FIGHT YHE POWER!
 
Two words prevented the replacement coach from doing his job - Republican obstructionism.

Neither republicans or democrats can do anything to prevent Obama (or bush at the time) from withdrawing troops. The President has sole discretion in that regard.
 
Neither republicans or democrats can do anything to prevent Obama (or bush at the time) from withdrawing troops. The President has sole discretion in that regard.

Republican Obstructionism is not about troop withdrawals.
 
Neither republicans or democrats can do anything to prevent Obama (or bush at the time) from withdrawing troops. The President has sole discretion in that regard.

The people could if they were not drrowning in apathy and brainwashed by the corporate media.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) —" It was another week at war in Afghanistan, another string of American casualties, and another collective shrug by a nation weary of a faraway conflict whose hallmark is its grinding inconclusiveness."

War-weary US is numbed to drumbeat of troop deaths - Yahoo! News

This article says we have become numb to troop deaths but I don't think so. I think the media is ignoring troop deaths because they support obama and try to sweep this under the rug so we are not numb we are just not being informed and reminded of the casualty rates we are suffering.

I think we should kick up our coverage of our wars to Vietnam style. So long as we are allowing the government to engage in endless war, we should be forced to view it.

I would agree that I do not think it's that we're numb to it, but rather that there is little to no reporting of our wars specifically so that we come to think of it as an issue existing far far away and not impacting our lives.
 
In case you forgot, Obama did not start these conflicts. Obama withdrew from Iraq, unlike others we know.

We still have folks in Iraq. No one has said that Obama started these wars, but hey was the one who promised to end them, early on in his first term. How's that promise coming?
 
The media reports too much it, that's why we're numb. After a while you don't notice anymore.

And besides, the rest of the media is reporting that the prince of England is flashin' his peepee in Las Vegas: which one are we supposed to listen to?

The media virtually stopped reporting on US casualties the moment obama was elected.
 
The media virtually stopped reporting on US casualties the moment obama was elected.

I don't remember it that way. My news stations still report. As I recall, the Bush Admin didn't want pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq.
 
I think we should kick up our coverage of our wars to Vietnam style. So long as we are allowing the government to engage in endless war, we should be forced to view it.

I would agree that I do not think it's that we're numb to it, but rather that there is little to no reporting of our wars specifically so that we come to think of it as an issue existing far far away and not impacting our lives.

In the Nam years the soldiers killed every day were put on your television screen every night at the end of the news. In that war the media was trying to demoralize us and turn America against the war and Nixon. Now the media has a president they worship so they do exactly the opposite, they ignore the US casualties. The medias intent during Nam was wrong but in retrospect you may be correct, show the names and pictures of every American killed in a war of choice every day our government chooses to keep troops in that war. Keep the pressure on to explain to us just why we are there and why our men are being killed and maimed.
 
I don't remember it that way. My news stations still report. As I recall, the Bush Admin didn't want pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq.

The media finally got the right to show coffins coming home shortly after obama was elected then they suddenly did not want those pics anymore. Ask yourself why.
 
In the Nam years the soldiers killed every day were put on your television screen every night at the end of the news. In that war the media was trying to demoralize us and turn America against the war and Nixon. Now the media has a president they worship so they do exactly the opposite, they ignore the US casualties. The medias intent during Nam was wrong but in retrospect you may be correct, show the names and pictures of every American killed in a war of choice every day our government chooses to keep troops in that war. Keep the pressure on to explain to us just why we are there and why our men are being killed and maimed.

If the Nam coverage was to demoralize us it was only through showing us what we were calling for, the results of us allowing the government to do so, and the government being unable to satisfactorily answer the People as to why we are there. I don't know, I wouldn't say that was trying to demoralize us as much as it was showing us what we were doing and the results of what we were allowing the government to do. The demoralization came not because the Press was showing us reality, but rather because the government couldn't explain why our fellow countrymen had to continually die day in and day out for something that wasn't our problem in the first place.

Every since the War on Terror turned into the forever war, however, media coverage has decreased and become essentially non-existent. It's not because Obama is in office, this started in Bush's term as well. We started off with coverage and then when it became clear we were going to get bogged down, coverage started to wan. Until we got what we have now and that is complete under-reporting of the war. The media machine is part of the status quo and the 4 people that own all the media are not going to let the status quo be challenged. I think now that we have this Corporate Capitalist model and the government is giving handouts, subsidies, and special treatment to the major corporations; they do not want to rock that boat. The government needs forever war to expand their power, and the Media Corp needs the government to continue existing as it does so that it can continue to provide protectionism for their little oligarchy. And so we get what we have.
 
If the Nam coverage was to demoralize us it was only through showing us what we were calling for, the results of us allowing the government to do so, and the government being unable to satisfactorily answer the People as to why we are there. I don't know, I wouldn't say that was trying to demoralize us as much as it was showing us what we were doing and the results of what we were allowing the government to do. The demoralization came not because the Press was showing us reality, but rather because the government couldn't explain why our fellow countrymen had to continually die day in and day out for something that wasn't our problem in the first place.

Every since the War on Terror turned into the forever war, however, media coverage has decreased and become essentially non-existent. It's not because Obama is in office, this started in Bush's term as well. We started off with coverage and then when it became clear we were going to get bogged down, coverage started to wan. Until we got what we have now and that is complete under-reporting of the war. The media machine is part of the status quo and the 4 people that own all the media are not going to let the status quo be challenged. I think now that we have this Corporate Capitalist model and the government is giving handouts, subsidies, and special treatment to the major corporations; they do not want to rock that boat. The government needs forever war to expand their power, and the Media Corp needs the government to continue existing as it does so that it can continue to provide protectionism for their little oligarchy. And so we get what we have.

Media coverage decreased when obama became commander and chief. When Bush was running the war media coverage increased and became ever more negative.


"The major print and broadcast media coverage of the Iraq War focused overwhelmingly on stories depicting the U.S. military negatively; stories emphasizing American troop casualties as well as Iraqi civilian casualties; and stories suggesting that the U.S. was hopelessly stuck in the quagmire of an unwinnable war. When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts in the United States, it found that during the active phase of the war against Saddam Hussein, 51% of all reports about the conflict were negative. Six months after the land battle had ended, 77% of the reports were negative. During the 2004 general election season, 89% were negative. By the spring of 2006, 94% were negative. This decline in media support was much more precipitous than what had occurred during the U.S. wars in Korea or Vietnam."


Media Spinning the Iraq War - Discover the Networks
 
Media coverage decreased when obama became commander and chief. When Bush was running the war media coverage increased and became ever more negative.


"The major print and broadcast media coverage of the Iraq War focused overwhelmingly on stories depicting the U.S. military negatively; stories emphasizing American troop casualties as well as Iraqi civilian casualties; and stories suggesting that the U.S. was hopelessly stuck in the quagmire of an unwinnable war. When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts in the United States, it found that during the active phase of the war against Saddam Hussein, 51% of all reports about the conflict were negative. Six months after the land battle had ended, 77% of the reports were negative. During the 2004 general election season, 89% were negative. By the spring of 2006, 94% were negative. This decline in media support was much more precipitous than what had occurred during the U.S. wars in Korea or Vietnam."


Media Spinning the Iraq War - Discover the Networks

Does that mean that if we put Romney it, the news coverage will pick up and become negative again?
 
The media finally got the right to show coffins coming home shortly after obama was elected then they suddenly did not want those pics anymore. Ask yourself why.

I think it's probably because people just didn't want to see them.
 
Does that mean that if we put Romney it, the news coverage will pick up and become negative again?

Could be. But the reason will likely be because of a new war and not Afghanistan. Romney has surrounded himself with Bush's foreign policy advisors, many of them neocons that are just waiting to get us into another useless war like Iraq. If you liked the Bush wars you would love a Romney Whitehouse.
 
Could be. But the reason will likely be because of a new war and not Afghanistan. Romney has surrounded himself with Bush's foreign policy advisors, many of them neocons that are just waiting to get us into another useless war like Iraq. I you liked the Bush wars you would love a Romney Whitehouse.

If you loved the Bush wars, you've loved the Obama Whitehouse as well.
 
Two words prevented the replacement coach from doing his job - Republican obstructionism.

Typical whiny bleating and blaming. Wah...it's not my fault!!! ****ing pathetic.
 
There's another factor - the Bush admin held daily press briefings on the wars and kept the troops and the wars in the press, the admin talked about the war all the time. Since President Obama was elected, not so much.
 
There's another factor - the Bush admin held daily press briefings on the wars and kept the troops and the wars in the press, the admin talked about the war all the time. Since President Obama was elected, not so much.

bUSH WAS WAGGING THE DOG.
 
Back
Top Bottom