Hence, ‘justness’ or ‘rightness’ of a war are important for any military intervention. However, it is very difficult to define what is ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. I argue that elites give the interpretation of the ‘justness’ of a war and media coverage helps to reach that interpretation to the public. Existing literatures of public opinion argue that information about the successes or the failures, objectives of a mission, number of casualty or elite cues are variables regarding public support for the wars. I argue that elite consensus is most important variable for shaping public opinion concerning war and it determines rightness of waging, continuing and ending a war.
The other assumption is that politics are driven by aspects of human behavior – numerous motivations such as the drive for power, will to dominate, self-interest and ambition (Lisinski). One of the much-disputed problems of international relations is explaining the occurrence of war. Defining war is easy – it is a military conflict between two or more parties. However, difficulties come about when we question why wars break out. A realist would posit that war is linked with human behavior, so wars are naturally occurring phenomena, and also that the system of anarchy resulting from the absence of a higher power leads to a state of war (Lisinkski).
Furthermore, IW consist of various methods such as terrorism, guerilla warfare, and insurgencies. While IW is inherently used by non-state actors, state actors have also employed such methods. Point #1: Misunderstanding the Nature of the War-“Know your Enemy” Often those who employ irregular warfare, based on the cases studied, are non-state actors or non-conventional forces. When great powers face any belligerent or better yet, when war is on the horizon, military and political leaders must perform an assessment of themselves as well as the other belligerent. The assessment is the most important task, as it will drive both belligerents to determine their strategy in obtaining their political objectives.
Reflecting on these differences, I realized that culture and national interests shape newspapers’ presentations of war. As an informed reader, it is important to know that I am often given a biased presentation of the facts surrounding a conflict and with this in mind I have changed the way I view reports on war presented by the media. In order to be culturally relativistic when reading about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, one must understand that while anger and a desire for land play a role in the fighting these are not the main causes of this conflict. It is necessary to look beyond these common myths of war in order to look for the true causes of the bloodshed. A deep underlying truth that could explain some reason for this turmoil is that neither side, Israel nor Palestine, has come to terms with living with each other.
Now that the basics of war have been covered, we need to dive deeper into how and why war starts. War is started by a difference in opinion. When you get to the very core of... ... middle of paper ... ...ur government and the governments of other countries, I can admit that war isn’t inevitable if someone takes it too far. However, I do believe that if our relations with other countries become stronger, we can avoid war and settle our differences in a non-violent way. For everyone who is pro-war, please consider this scenario: what if it was you on that battlefield?
There could have been major differences in the whole war if there was no propaganda, differences which could have easily affected the Allies, such as the joining of America, the support of all of the people back home and also the amount of volunteers which might not have enlisted. Overall I think propaganda was indeed very important, especially because of the reasons listed above. It kept the minds of the Britons focused on the war effort and rallied them and allies abroad to our cause. Without propaganda the world today might have been different than it is, because without it we could have lost the war.
The first issue to be considered is what is war and what is its definition. The student of war needs to be careful in examining definitions of war, for like any social phenomena, definitions are varied, and often the proposed definition masks a particular political or philosophical stance paraded by the author. This is as true of dictionary definitions as well as of articles on military or political history. Cicero defines war broadly as "a contention by force"; Hugo Grotius adds that "war is the state of contending parties, considered as such"; Thomas Hobbes notes that war is also an attitude: "By war is meant a state of affairs, which may exist even while its operations are not continued"; Denis Diderot comments that war is "a convulsive and violent disease of the body politic;" for Karl von Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means", and so on. Each definition has its strengths and weaknesses, but often is the culmination of the writer's broader philosophical positions.
What does war have to do with SB 1070? War terminology forces us to examine the situation and decipher who is good guy and who is bad guy. Although this is a common practice, it has the potential of aiding the loss of the common sense and middle ground consensus on the bill by using heated rhetoric. War terms inspired action and excitement surrounding the bill. The use of these terms help add fuel to the fire of both the supporters of the bill and those who opposed it.
Crelinsten stated that, It is widely believed that the media provides the ‘oxygen of publicity’ for the terrorist. This is a gross simplification. Media coverage can provide terrorists with attention, sometimes with recognition, but rarely with legitimacy. Most media coverage in times of terrorist crisis tends to sway public opinion against the terrorist through the somewhat ironic means of increasing public anxiety and identification with the terrorist’s victims through sensationalisation, dramatisation and personalisation. The media perform a hegemonic function, whereby it privileges the official perspectives, marginalises opposing perspectives, and delegitimises the terrorist perspective.
The importance of a legally binding definition of terrorism Terrorism is a tool that is used by many actors including states. It is usually defined as violent acts toward civilians to achieve political, religious or ideological goals. In both the international system and academic sphere however, terrorism is a contested term without a legally binding definition. The United Nation since the 1970’s has been unable to formulate or negotiate a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. The problem is a result of the ambiguous and subjective nature of the term terrorism.