Public Opinion

1. 66

   Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years ago

   I've heard from some of my returning commenters that the increase in saturation and speed of internet media have had some effect on the outcome of current events. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen.
   
   I'm curious to hear from people who've had their finger on the pulse of politics and foreign affairs since before the dawn of the internet. How much has the medium for public opinion changed and is there a stronger influence of public opinion on legislation and foreign policy?

   replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   On public opinion ...sure , which all affects legislation in it's usual way .  I recently read while Zuckerberg was before congress that every member on the panel had a Face Book page one , and two that Zucker made a few million dollars while he was testifying .
   
   All simply proving there's as much bad with good in modern communication . Remember ,  popular opinion changes or is capable of changing fairly instantly . That's why instant polling was never a truly effective mode of keeping an informed  "finger on the button " of legislative actions , FOR any political entity .
   
   Something to consider , After 9 -1-1 everybody was ready to go to war [90 something %]  yet that poll changed in a couple of years when people realised the investment of blood and treasure .

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It seems like there's been ample time for the public to become disillusioned about the reasons why we went into Iraq after 9/11. It surprises me that anyone, even conservatives, would be okay with an extended stay in the middle east today.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Jessie  I think it's fairly clear that most people [ government ]feel that the greatest threats to world peace have and will continue to come out of the middle eastern region of the world.  Especially given the age of nukes , bio-weaponry , dirty bombs , and the fanatical religions that stand behind these governments , to say nothing about mentaities of government leaders  still operating from twelfth century human ,social , cultural maturities .

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I think we've done a pretty good job at keeping that out of our house. Everyone should be grateful that we are not Europe and Scandinavia right now. Those countries are neighbors with many of the radical nations of the middle east that you're talking about. But they've handled their immigration policies so poorly its appalling.
            
            A sudden involvement or extension of a prior involvement just doesn't seem like the way to go. Look how well it worked over the last 15 years. The base I was stationed at in Afghanistan is currently overrun by the Taliban. Whatever we do over there doesn't actually work. Unless we are to engage in a full-scale invasion then it will just be a slow drip of lost brothers and sisters over the course of many decades.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               God bless you for your service ! First , Secondly , we can do so much today without our boy's boots on the ground ,no ?  Let's expend their "blood and treasure" from now on  and not our own boys ,   Do you feel there is any need other than drones , cash and cruise missiles needed ?  I say cash because we can buy our loyalties from the infighting natives and cruise /missile our way in .
               Why do we always learn our Viet-Nams the hard way ?

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  It would be great if warfare could be carried out in a cubicle somewhere in California but those approaches can be too blunt and misinformed. With troops on the ground, there is minute to minute communication about what happens in a particular region of enemy territory. A battalion-sized group of targets can mobilize quicker than most people think. The military would not like you to know how many empty buildings or innocent people its blown up from afar. I don't know though, that could be my own bias.
                  
                  There's no way to really even get the truth out of whats happening anyway. If a drone strike killed 3 bad guys, the news may or may not report the 40 other casualties.
                  
                  And, not to use slippery slope logic, but, if we're going to do war remotely why not just go all the way. You know what I mean.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     It's no different is it than the big brother in the neighborhood , protecting the smaller kids from the gangs .   I will never have "missile / drone guilt" , though as long as we can stand behind and stand with our troops. Spend a million a missile but save the man anytime !

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Sometimes protecting smaller kids makes new bullies. That's how you get ISIS. And every time you remove the opportunity for a group of people to overcome its own oppression then you've crippled them forever. We've done this to so many people under the guise of providing "humanitarian" aid. You should know that. The Clintons.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           So the gas attacks of leaders against their own people all go on unchecked ?

                           replyreport
                           1. 66

                              Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Everyone knows the gas attack incident is a shit story and it has been from the gate. People on both sides have been acknowledging that and it keeps getting railroaded by this strange story with no details. It's the weapons of mass destruction narrative all over again.
                              
                              It wasn't even a logical response on part of the Assad regime to begin with. There was zero precedent for it, given the circumstances.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 You're not saying there was no gas attack are you , now or before ?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 66

                                    Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    No. It just didn't seem like airtight evidence for getting involved. Why did it take so long to figure out which type of chemical it was? And there's a huge difference between chlorine and other harsh chemical agents.  The whole report was just too ambiguous. Then again, I just noticed a newspaper headline about the strike being a 'one-time' thing. So, who knows. I can't keep up.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       Sad but true !

                                       report
                        2. 66

                           Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           And if a particular group of people is incapable of overcoming their oppression, it's still not our responsibility to jump in and wreak havoc of our own. The goal is to end suffering, not add to it. We don't have magical missiles that only hit the bad guys.

                           replyreport