A Picture Can Win Or Lose A War

Discussion in 'Media' started by mudwhistle, Apr 2, 2011.

  1. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,298
    Thanks Received:
    11,931
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,235
    [​IMG][​IMG] Joe Rosenthal

    How to win a war without firing a shot (Our lose one)

    Above is a prime example of how pictures can win or lose a war. The United States was bleeding money and was almost broke. And along comes this picture from the AP showing a gallant flag-raising that somehow went right to the heart of what it meant to be an American and an American fighting man. Anyone who has read the book "Flags of our Fathers" knows that this one picture helped fund the rest of the war. Little did everyone know that what it depicted was less then honest.

    It doesn't matter that the picture didn't tell the true story of what was actually happening. Fact was, at the time the picture was taken, not only wasn't the battle won but three of the flag-raisers would die within a month after the photo was taken before Iwo Jima was secured. There was a lull in fighting and some of the worst fighting was soon to follow.

    The flag-raisers were totally unopposed when they scaled the instinct volcano. However, not long after the flag was planted the Japanese realized that somebody dared to place a flag on what they considered sacred ground, so it wasn't long till all hell broke loose again.

    This was the arguably the worst battle in U.S. history, and it was the first time we suffered more casualties then the enemy. Over 26,000 Marines were wounded or killed along with 22,000 of the Imperial Japanese Army. On top of this, the flag pictured was a replacement flag. It was not even the original flag that was planted on Mount Suribachi. So it seems that a picture may be worth a thousand words, but many times the wrong words are portrayed.

    During WWII journalists were for the most part looking to prop up the war effort. These days journalists know that they'll never get a Pulitzer Prize for being patriotic or appearing to be aligned with the war-mongers in the Pentagon, so pictures like the ones below are the rule of the day. You'll rarely see anything that helps our country win a war if our media can help it.

    Let us suppose you wanted to infiltrate our society and do serious damage to the physic of the American people. A foreign operative knows now that the best way to turn the tide of the war is become a journalist. Problem is, our enemies don't even have to use spies or plants because your media is more then willing to do the job for them lately. This has been the case since Korea.

    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    This illustrates how important the media is to winning a war. If the media isn't on the side of the war effort then it's simply a lost cause.

    These days they're not really showing an active interest in Afghanistan. 116 of the 101st Airborne Division's troops died in March of 2011 but not one word of it has reached the general public. It's like the war doesn't really exist. Perhaps the media is trying to ignore the war because it doesn't serve their purpose. While Bush was POTUS it was a totally different story.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  2. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    I agree that the news media has a huge impact on public opinion. However, a lot of it also rests on why our leaders tell us it's necessary to go to war. That was the problem with Vietnam. We said we were going there to stop the menacing Red Horde, then it turned out that the Chinese weren't really trying to expand into Southeast Asia and the Soviets had their hands full elsewhere. We said it was to give democracy a chance, then it turned out that the South Vietnamese governments were so corrupt that Kennedy was ready to throw in the towel.

    Look, I don't have a problem with the fact that we were in Vietnam. The problem is that the US government needs to just be honest with the American public. I think the American public is sophisticated enough to understand that we're basically dead in the water without oil, so let's not snow them with grandiose explanations about planting seeds of democracy, stopping terrorism, etc. and just tell it like it is. Fact is that if anyone threatens to disrupt the oil trade, we're going to kick their ass. We'll make up reasons to go in and kick their ass. And I don't have a problem with that. I think the American public is more willing to accept that. This applies to all leaders, regardless of political party because they all fall under the exact same misconception that they have to somehow get the folks to rally around some noble cause as the reason for war. And this is where the news media makes its money: pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy between the official reason for war and what's actually happening on the ground.

    And now Obama has joined the club and found himself knee deep in Kimchi because he said he would never support a war unless it was a direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States. Yet here he is trying to tap dance around Libya.

    I think the reason the news media doesn't report much on Iraq and Afghanistan, other than the occasional suicide bombing, is because there's no money in it anymore. Not so much from the political angle but because the public is tired of hearing it. Those stories just don't sell anymore.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  3. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,298
    Thanks Received:
    11,931
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,235
    The public listens to what you put in front of them. It's up to you to sell the case for it's importance.

    Everyone is tired of hearing about war, but the reason they're not hearing it is because of the media. The media is using Libya to get back some of the credibility they've lost since they decided to throw in with Obama. It's not money that drives them because they can always count on Obama giving them a bailout. This is why Fox News gets better ratings then anyone. Because they give us the news we are interested in, not the news the media wants to let us hear. Fox reports just about everything, while the rest of them are basically giving us a sales-pitch on Marxist ideology.
     
  4. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    The flag raising pic did not win any war, at that point us winning the war against Japan was inevitable. It was just going to take more time, materials and lives.
    We had the industrial might and determination and Japans defeat was inevitable.
     
  5. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    I do not disagree about how the media influences public opinion and political decisions. I would not, however, give the media credit for having so much control that it decides the outcome of wars.

    You, of all people, know that the outcome of wars relies on having solid, well-defined military objectives that are carried out by military leaders. Granted, those orders come from political leaders who are mindful of how the media portrays the war. It boils down to leadership. Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the junior had it. Clinton was good at giving the appearance of leadership (and he did make some good decisions---give the man credit where credit is due, but he also made some dumb decisions). Carter was the weakest excuse of a leader in history. Even Obama looks like a tough guy next to Carter, but Obama is working hard towards beating Carter as the most wishy-washy president in modern times.

    My point is that Obama's actions and decisions alone make the difference whether or not the war is successful. The media would fail at trying to prop up Obama because the American public is not so easily fooled.
     
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    The American publican is VERY easially fooled and very resistant to admitting they were fooled.
    The last poll I saw on it siad that 30% of Americans think that Iraq was involved in 911.
     
  7. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,298
    Thanks Received:
    11,931
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,235
    And as anyone who was alive then will tell you, you can't win a war with good intentions.

    It takes money and it takes a positive climate to get the folks behind the war effort. You needed both back then because the war was funded by War Bonds, not taxes.

    Everyone felt the war was still in doubt, but only in retrospect does it seem it was inevitable.
     
  8. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,298
    Thanks Received:
    11,931
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,235
    Once again, pictures of Abu Grab helped turn the public against the war. It took a concerted effort on the part of the press to help it along, but it's rare that anyone will say that they liked what we accomplished in Iraq or even consider it to be a success, even though we did pretty much the exact same thing Obama is trying to do in Libya.

    Oh, and I doubt you realize the impact that pic of those Marines raising a flag on some stink-hole in the Pacific had on Americans.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I was ahead of the curve, I was against the war before it even began.
    I was shocked/aghast that the USA would invade a country based on what it might might do.
     
  10. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,298
    Thanks Received:
    11,931
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,235
    You forget we invaded Iraq for more then that.

    We were being targeted by Saddam's air-defense installations, he had proven to be a threat to the region when he invaded Kuwait, he was funding terrorism in Israel to the tune of $25,000 for each terrorist bomber, he was murdering thousands of Kurds, poisoning their wetlands, he had set fire to the oil-fields, etc..

    He had proven to be a wild dog and the U.N. was about to let him go back to business as usual in a matter of months. He had tons of yellow-cake they never found till after we invaded.

    Nope, he was a serious threat.

    But that wasn't good enough.

    Obama felt he had to do something and so did Bush.

    But for some folks that's not enough.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011

Share This Page