Eviticus wrote:Apparently, the world media is content to highlight things like how cruely America treats it's prisoners, but not the mass genocide by the hands of Nigerian dictators...
News at home always takes precedence over everything else. It's how the media works. There's a whole lot of people out there who will hear about things like Biafra and ask what it has to do with them, and, believing that it doesn't, give it the cold shoulder. There's far worse things out in the world than what America, the UK, and most other countries do, but the majority of people aren't interested.
I'm too much of an idiot not to read through this thread and not say anything, but I'll try and keep it short. The freedoms we - as Americans and (in my case) a Briton - enjoy are awesome, and I'll agree that they were fought for in WWII. However, I don't buy the idea that they're the main reason behind Iraq, Afghanastan etc. If our governments came out and said "we're out on a mission to spread human rights through the human race", then that'd be awesome, and I'd love it - but I'm not convined that that's what's motivated recent military actions. If it were, then someone like Robert Mugabe would have been removed from office long ago - he's far worse a ruler than Saddam was when he was removed from power. Not long ago Mugabe's government started demolishing the houses of people who voted against him. I don't recall any government doing anything against him expressing concern, the same as they have been since he came to government.
My main point, though, is that the main way our freedoms are being removed in recent years are through our own governments. There's been a lot of laws proposed and passed in recent times that have had human rights groups like Amnesty International (who I spent two years doing student volunteer work with) squirming. Our grandparents fought off the Nazis and the Japanese to save our freedoms in the 40s; the danger now is that, in order to save them, our governments are taking them away from us. And I'm refering to "us" as a people as a whole - to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, black, white, gay, straight, whatever you damn well like. It's all very subtle, but it's a real concern.
Furthermore, I feel that the actions of American and British soldiers deserve to be highlighted in the way they are, because if we're going to go and claim the moral high ground in these wars, we better act like we damn well deserve it. The majority of troopers do - I know a fair few people in the military, and I knew lots of Muslims during my time at uni, and they were all singing from the same hymn sheet - but those few who ruin it for the rest should be rooted out.
People are people are people. People aren't an organisation. I'm reading The Grapes of Wrath ATM, and near the start, there's a great section about how a bank is made up of people, but it's bigger than any person, or any number of people, and even though everyone in the bank hates their job and what they have to do, they do it because the bank wants them to. The bank may be controlled by people in name, but those people are controlled by the bank, and no one can stop the bank, because you can stop people, but the bank is bigger than people. I'm not doing too good a job of remembering it, but I hope you see why I'm saying it. I'll never disrespect someone in the military (unless they're doing something illegal, e.g. torture), but I can hate what the military itself does.
I hope I'm not putting my oar in where it's not wanted. I'm still a new kid around here, and still learning the ins-and-outs of the society of this forum, but I'm too outspoken to not speak up.
