Iraq war: Has the media been fair?

lambada

New Member
Messages
2,444
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi,

This is for my citizenship coursework so please take this seriosuly....

The Iraq war has been constantly reported in the media, hardly a week goes by (in Britain atleast :p) where we don't hear of a death of one or the other.

My question is this: Has the media reported fairly on the Iraq war and have they influenced peoples opinions, or have the people influenced the media? Please can you answer this along with your opinions on Iraq both before and after the fall of Saddam. Do you think we should have gone in? Do you think that Iraq is worse now? Which newspapers support your view? Do you think the media intentionally only report on deaths our side of the battlefield, or do they report both sides unbiastly?

I'd appreciate global views so please post your response, your name, your age, and your country so I can show a wide range of sources of opinions.

Also appreciated would be newspaper stories which back-up your point.

Thanks

lambada (Samuel Walker, 15, England UK)
 
Last edited:

Zenax

Active Member
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
4
Points
38
OK, since this is your citizenship coursework, then I will answer with my oppinion in a serious matter.

My belief is that, we as a country, should not of gone to war with Iraq. I feel that it is a serious waste of money, and also it is getting people killed.

You have to think of all the people who have lost relatives in this war! and what for exactly? They claim to have gone because of WMD. I would like to have seen proof of WMD's before my country actually went to war.

Personally, I think that the media has reported fairly on what has gone off in the war. They report what is happening and the latest events. But then again, some people have the belief that the media emphasize things, to try and get listners/viewers/readers etc.

After the fall of Saddam, things have not got any better really have they? there is still fighting going off in Iraq, people are still being killed, even after Saddam was stopped.

Age: 16
Country: UK (United Kingdom)
 

Chris Z

Active Member
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Zenax, even if people didn't go there to fight, there would still be many people dead, as Sadam Hussein would probably STILL be in power and he just loved killing people, so we probably actually saved many deaths from occuring although there were some casualties, the number is far less than what it would be if we did not go there. If not your's and my soldiers dead, than Iraqi citizens
 

Joker Boy

New Member
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Joker Boy said:
Afghanistan = good reason 4 war.
Iraq = poor excuse 4 war.

The war on terrorism was a fine thing, we retalliated after we had been attacked (I personally believe that it was not Osama Bin Laden the performed these attacks, but was the U.S. government) and we went after whom we thought responsible. Once we had him captured we kept on trucking. Iraq was completely unnecessary.

When America attacked Iraq was the first time in history that the U.S. has ever attacked another country without being attacked by them first. Ever.

Age: 14
Country: Texas
 

Zenax

Active Member
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Fair point Chris Z

I read an article in my local free paper, that more than Half of the Army and 40% of the RAF (Royal Air Force) and Navy, are considering quiting because of over stretching.

Do you think it would be right for them to quit, if they are in the middle of this such war?? Should we have gone to war if we did not have the resources to cope with such a war?
 

IIN Operator

New Member
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was against the war from the start. Back then, the media slandered the anti-war movement on a daily basis. Here in America, the media claims to be objective, but they aren't. Fox News Channel's slogan is "Real Journalism - Fair and Balanced" but they spend all their time sucking up to President Bush and the Republicans. Back in 2003, focus grouping (which never works by the way and is a total waste of money for corporations) convinced the other news channels CNN and MSNBC to try and out-do Rupert Murdoch and his biased news coverage.

In the last year, public opinion has really shifted and the media has gone with them (except Fox). People are almost universally against the war these days and the President's party is projected to lose the election in a landslide next Tuesday. People now realize that Iraq was never a threat to anybody and had none of the Weapons of Mass Deception that the President used to mislead us into war.

Honestly, I supported the Afghanistan War because the truth is that Osama bin Forgotten's terrorists did attack the Towers on September 11th, 2001, regardless of what the conspiracy theories (to convince people to stop believing those theories, you have to prove them wrong, even though nobody's ever proven them correct so the burden of proof should be on the conspiracy theorist) say. I believe we should go to war with Iran because Iran has long been known to be the number 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Iraq isn't the first war America ever entered without being attacked. The Revolutionary War was a very much justified war because the British Parliament was trying to financially harm our country for a decade before it and British soldiers massacred civilians in Boston in 1770. The British started that one by attacking us at Lexington and Concord. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and 230 years later, we're still not up to those standards. The next 2 wars in American history, against some pirates in Africa (1st decade of 1800s) and Britain (War of 1812) were started by attacks on our navy. We fought numerous aggressive wars against the Native Americans during the 1800s. Ironically, in the 1700s, the Native Americans were referred to as Americans and what is today an American was then a Colonist. Then some Americans moved into Mexico (Texas was the specific region of Mexico) and we fought the Mexican War to take all the land from Texas to California from Mexico and paid them an insufficient amount. Of course, we later paid about the same amount to Mexico to get a small strip of land in Arizona so that we could build a railroad on it. After that, the Southern states exercised their constitutional right to secede (I'm actually a Northerner, but I recognize that the South was well within their rights to secede and still would be today), but the Southern Army attacked us in a military base on their territory and started the Civil War. Then our media fraudulently drove us into war with Spain after a ship exploded off the coast of Cuba (through the fault of the crew) and we took Spain's remaining possessions. We were dragged into World War I by a fraudulent telegram sent by the British and the moron we had in the White House at that time (Wilson; besides creating a crappy peace league that failed, he was responsible for the IRS, Prohibition, the rise of the Mafia and KKK, and began attacks on civil liberties). We were attacked in World War II by Japan (Japan's slow typists in their embassy delivered the notice about the attack late, so it ended up being a sneak attack, to the Japanese leadership's dismay, as they merely wanted to attack us to get us to negotiate peace with them, instead of instigating a war that ended with a nuclear attack). However, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq I were all interventions by our military as have been every war since WWII for us except Afghanistan.

I don't think the Media has been very fair at least here in the US, because they've been very favorable of this war for the majority of it and Fox remains favorable. If the Democrats ever retake the presidency, they will certainly return to being the vicious attack dogs that they were during the Clinton Administration, instead of being the gentle lap dogs that they are at the moment, even though choosing between the Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.

17, USA
 

Chris Z

Active Member
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ok...so maybe FOX News does suck up to Bush, but all the other news channels are (what Rush Limbaugh likes to call) the "Drive-by Media" meaning that they report on something they know so little about, and it's just ridiculous. At least FOX goes out and researches the topic instead of just going right out there and saying false and ignorant things on camera.

[offtopic]Obviously, yes, I am a republican and i mostly support Bush, but yesterday, my liberal Health Teacher pointed out that Bush is supporting "Abstinence-Only" for health ed. programs, and that STDs have skyrocketted since the reign of Clinton because of the lack of knowledge of preventing STDs, but i do understand that he just doesn't want teens having sex, but i think he should actually support the "Abstinence-Only + Prevention" program[/offtopic]
 

Bonekhan

New Member
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Actually, some interesting news has surfaced recently saying that Sadaam accepted offers of a peacemaking not two hours before the dead line, and Bush and officials ignored him. ("._.)
 
Top