Lastly, he wants to get across the message that the U.S. is at war with Muslims and not Iraq, which I believe is completely untrue. The second article from The New York Observer also had a few ideas that in my eyes were wrong. First and foremost, the author seems to doubt his own opinion towards the end of the editorial by questioning his own views on the matter. I believe that if you are going to write about something you should be sure about it. The author also states that the U.S. is unable to prevail in Iraq.
Vietnam War Prior to Vietnam, the American populous held their Schools, Congressman, and official institutions in a high regard. Some Americans felt that even though the intentions of the Government were good when entering the conflict, it was a battle that could never be won and there was too great of a burden on the country economically and social to continue the war. Others felt that the United States was in Vietnam for a purpose and should stay until their task was accomplished. It’s hard to determine the long-term effects of Vietnam to the American public. Although many students were moved by the war, it also caused great changes to politics in the United States.
Primarily, it is clearly geared towards its receiving audience, namely well-to-do traditional American families. As a result, it definitely holds a biased position that requires it to appeal to its readers and pander to popular opinions beyond simply informing the general public of newsworthy events regarding the war. The second document also exhibits bias, although of a completely different sort. This underground newspaper promotes radically different, liberal, anti-war ideas and is obviously not geared towards ameliorating its professional image or really pandering to its audience. Its unofficial status makes it less put together while perhaps ensuring greater freedom of information.
Many American citizens in 1959 viewed the Vietnam War as a righteous battle against communism, similar to the Iraq War today however now many view this war as a necessary battle against terrorism. Looking at America's overall goal in Vietnam, it is evident that we did not come close to keeping South Vietnam from collapsing, who fell to communist rule in 1975 (Frankum 210). America's involvement in the conflicts of Vietnam and Iraq were so discordant that our government, people, and military were constricted. Yet both wars were fought with the knowledge that America may change the invaded nation, which brings a precarious question; what makes the government believe that they have the right to go into a country and change it to the way they
This occurred some years after 1950. In the 1960s and 70s, the American public became very angry and frustrated with the military-industrial complex. The protest against the Vietnam War had reached its very highest. In President Eisenhower‘s farewell address, he warned, “ In the councils of government, we must guard against acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” The American public should refrain from gaining any negative or unauthorized influences by the military-industrial complex.
Hindsight. A bias only gifted to those who have the pleasure of standing on the sidelines or those who specialize in criticizing the actions of others in dire times of the past, while they themselves stand in the relative safety of the present. Every person is subject to hindsight and such treatment can ruin careers and the historic impression one leaves. Case example: Hiroshima. Many criticize the US Military’s bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet those same individuals are often civilians who have a general disliking of war and consequently are misinformed to the point of extreme partisan bias.
The documentary makes me believe that the media wanted to put this fear into the publics eyes so they would support the war more. I say this because when the mainstream would print pictures or film the crash sights they would only use footage and prints of intense explosions, a lot of burning shrapnel and picture of marines that ducking or covering themselves with the look of utter fear in their eyes. This creates the image that we were really struggling during these conflicts when in actuality we were winning most of these battles that the media claimed to be so harsh on our
Virtually all first world countries would have voted against us at the U.N. on the matter of starting war with Iraq in 2003. Countries like Germany and France have been through thousands of years of armed conflict on their own soil, both on the winning and losing sides. Countries like Russia and China (who might like a few regime changes themselves) felt the situation wasn’t as clear cut and moralistic as we were made to believe. Our government’s rhetoric left them unconvinced, as Noam Chomsky explains in the sidebar. Germany, France, Turkey, Russia, Canada, to name a few—these countries acted in accordance with their citizens’ majority opinion on the matter.
Wilson’s sympathies; 3.) Zimmermann telegram. * People reluctant to join due to the memory of the Civil War and the horrors of trench warfare, and the belief that it was Europe’s issue, not America’s. * Wilson’s response? Whip up enthusiasm through propaganda (Selective Service Act) and persecute those who spoke out against the war (Espionage Act).
When we fail to grant equality to all, that makes news – bad news – for America all over the world. This is not the type of rhetoric the history books talk about when discussing the Civil Rights – and yet here it is, in front of our faces. There is also the phrase “The whole world is watching us.” This was