Questions: America and War/Nukes

[Greensinge]

Good day!

I am currently making a (delayed) start at my Media and Politics dissertation at university, and as I've already been helped in this forum before with some other related issues I hoped it could be done again by the very helpful folks in this community!

I have a couple of questions to ask which could be either directly answered (preferrably with some idea of the source of the information) or even with just an idea of some good books, documentaries or websites I could check out.

The questions are as follows (the time-range for each question is since the year 1900):

How and why have the United States been involved in any wars? (WW1/WW2/Vietnam/Iraq 1/Iraq 2)

On how many occassions has the United States used a Nuclear Weapon, in both War and test situations?

What are the United States policies on Nuclear Weapons today? How have they changed? What do the people of America think of these policies? (the last question there isn't necessarily important, because it may be a bit difficult to find this answer)

What is the defence budget in the United States? It would be very helpful to know these figures as a percentage against the rest of the country's spending..

How many nuclear weapons do we know exist in the world today and who owns what?

These are only a few of the many questions that I have to answer, but I would really, really appreciate any answers to any of the questions you could give me. Once again, it would be most helpful if any answers I get could include some kind of official source for the information.

I know it's a pretty tall order to be asking this many things when I should really be finding the answers myself, but I've left this thing a bit too late and now I'm shitting myself about getting it done in time, because I have so many other questions to come up with and answer!

Thanks a lot guys and gals!

P.S. If anyone happens to be interested in what my dissertation question is, just so you know why I'm actually asking these questions, it's roughly along the lines of 'How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?' and I have to answer it with 15,000 words! Yipes!

[bobomajo]

lol trying to get other people to do your assignment, I think that information will be hard to come by quite sure the US government don't want their enemies looking them up on the internet.

[Greensinge]

At 11/25/07 11:26 AM, bobomajo wrote: lol trying to get other people to do your assignment, I think that information will be hard to come by quite sure the US government don't want their enemies looking them up on the internet.

Believe me, I'd rather not have to ask this of people but it's my own fault and I don't have much time (11 days to be exact) to get these and other questions answered. I suppose you could say im DESPERAAATE!!! :(

I've already found some information on America joining WW2 but there wasn't really anything about the source of the information.

If people think that I should f**k off and do all of this myself then please just don't leave a message, otherwise you know I'm desperate so pleeeease!

[Tott]

I think america has been invovled in lots of wars because most presidents IQs are under 80. ps, don't use that info in your assignment, it wont help. plus could you get in trouble for this

[Greensinge]

At 11/25/07 12:00 PM, chainsawmurderer53 wrote: I think america has been invovled in lots of wars because most presidents IQs are under 80. ps, don't use that info in your assignment, it wont help. plus could you get in trouble for this

I don't think I could get into trouble no, I'm not asking anybody to write this for me. I'm just asking where I can find these facts, as it's quite difficult to find a lot of these things, even with google!

[K-RadPie]

Wikipedia.

[TheMason]

At 11/25/07 12:22 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Wikipedia.

As a graduate teaching assistant, I cannot say this loud enough: if this is for a college paper do not use Wikipedia.

Once source I would suggest: http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Another is: http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

Another good source would be the Jane's series of books if your college library has any of them.

[K-RadPie]

At 11/25/07 01:59 PM, TheMason wrote: As a graduate teaching assistant, I cannot say this loud enough: if this is for a college paper do not use Wikipedia.

Do and say you didn't.

[TheMason]

At 11/25/07 02:00 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 11/25/07 01:59 PM, TheMason wrote: As a graduate teaching assistant, I cannot say this loud enough: if this is for a college paper do not use Wikipedia.

Do and say you didn't.

Hey I'm just letting you know that the vast majority of profs are marking papers down for sourcing Wikipedia for many different reasons. One of the most glaring is that since it is open source and changes frequently, the page may not say what you quoted in your paper if someone were to check you source because another editor changed it.

Furthermore, now many high schools are starting to make it policy that wikipedia not be counted as a legitimate source.

But hey, what do I know? I mean it's not like I'm 15 and have all the answers. :)

[Imperator]

At 11/25/07 11:18 AM, Greensinge wrote:
I am currently making a (delayed) start at my Media and Politics dissertation at university, and as I've already been helped in this forum before with some other related issues I hoped it could be done again by the very helpful folks in this community!

Well if you're writing a dissertation shouldn't answering these questions be part of your argument, or are you using the info here like a survey, to see what people think on the below questions?

For sources in general I'd say check with your Uni's history dept profs, or see what your dissertation adviser has to say. Maybe he/she knows of an expert on campus who can give you some very solid sources.

How and why have the United States been involved in any wars? (WW1/WW2/Vietnam/Iraq 1/Iraq 2)

WWI and WWII were similar in that they were responses to aggression. Unrestricted sub warfare and Pearl to be exact.

After WWII the US shifted to a preventative type strategy, where wars are conducted on the basis of a perceived threat, either to the US itself or US interests. As time goes by and globalization occur I think the US has engaged militarily more in protecting US interests as opposed to the US itself. See Vietnam to Iraq 2.

On how many occassions has the United States used a Nuclear Weapon, in both War and test situations?

Not a clue on testing, but 2 times in war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the Library of Congress and the Japanese equivalent should have expert sources on this.

What are the United States policies on Nuclear Weapons today? How have they changed? What do the people of America think of these policies? (the last question there isn't necessarily important, because it may be a bit difficult to find this answer)

Today I'd say we're looking at possible uses of nukes as legitimate strike weapons. It has definitely changed from a weapon of Global Annihilation to something more practical, at least in our current rationale. I for one don't like even the thought line of practical nuke uses, whether for bunker-busting or otherwise. I don't feel with as advanced as weaponry today is (UCAVs et al) there's no need to "backtrack" to making a more archaic weapon usable in the 21st century. We should be trying to replace nukes, NOT make them feasible weapons.

What is the defence budget in the United States? It would be very helpful to know these figures as a percentage against the rest of the country's spending..

Huge. No clue on actual numbers, something like 400-500 bil. Absolutely huge.
Percentage wise it's something like a third I think? Maybe a fourth? Medicare and Social Security eat up the most.

How many nuclear weapons do we know exist in the world today and who owns what?

Something like 10-15 countries, with the US and Russia being the largest. US has maybe 20,000, and Russia slightly more.

Oddly enough I think a good chunk of those are old and obsolete......

P.S. If anyone happens to be interested in what my dissertation question is, just so you know why I'm actually asking these questions, it's roughly along the lines of 'How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?' and I have to answer it with 15,000 words! Yipes!

Like I said, for basic historical information, check with the Uni's history dept. And for American opinions on these things, check the Anthro or Sociology departments. They'll be able to point you to scholarly sources.

[ntrokel]

Well I know that these countries have nuclear weapons:
1. USA: A little more than 10,000 total nukes but only about 6000 active weapons.
2.Russia: 16000 owned but only around 3200 active
3.China: Around 350
4.India: 110
5.Pakistan: 75 (approx.)
6.France: 350 active, 350 owned
7.UK: 200 active 200 owned
8.Isreal: Undeclared stockpile but guessed to be from 75- 200
9. North Korea (maybe): less than 15 (no way to tell)

Sorry so many of the numbers are 'about' but countries keep this kind of thing on the down low. Good luck hope i could help.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 11:18 AM, Greensinge wrote:

How and why have the United States been involved in any wars? (WW1/WW2/Vietnam/Iraq 1/Iraq 2)

Since you're British, if you say anything other than "America fought for its economy and because the Jews control it" then you're going to fail.

If you say anything that is remotely based on reality, you're going to come off as too pro-American.

On how many occassions has the United States used a Nuclear Weapon, in both War and test situations?

The US has used a nuclear weapons twice, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But there have been thousands of tests. Most of which didn't actually involve a detonation though but they are considered nuclear tests.

What are the United States policies on Nuclear Weapons today?

The US maintains its right to operate a nuclear deterrent, as do several other countries (including yours). The US is dedicated to anti-proliferation, and has only traded nuclear technology with the UK, who depends on the US.

I'm sure this will also not go well with British people, but part of the US nuclear policy is to provide a nuclear deterrent capability for the UK. The UK is entirely dependent on the US for nukes, so your country has the luxury of pretending it's less militaristic because it didn't invest in all of the technology.

All the nukes and nuke delivery systems that your country has depend on the US. They were manufactured in the US, they are owned by the US, the US only leases them to you. Your parliament admits this.

All the nukes inside of your country are controlled by the US Airforce. The ones you have on nuclear submarines are the Tridents that are leased to you, and are almost entirely dependent on the US in order to function because they rely on weather and gravitational data, GPS coordinates (your country has no independent GPS yet), and US-provided maintenance and repair.

What is the defence budget in the United States? It would be very helpful to know these figures as a percentage against the rest of the country's spending..

How many nuclear weapons do we know exist in the world today and who owns what?

About 16500 nuclear warheads exist in the world.

It's a myth that the US has the most nukes. Here's the list:

Russia: 8500
USA: 7000
China: 420
France: 350
UK: 200
India: 45-95
Pakistan: 30-50

And Israel might have 75-200 in their possession but this is purely speculative.

'How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?' and I have to answer it with 15,000 words! Yipes!

This is why British people are so hopelessly brainwashed. You are get this constant, steady flow of anti-US propaganda, not just in your media but in your schooling. The way that question is set up will no doubt end up with quite a hefty bit of criticism of the US, and the people with the best marks will undoubtedly be the ones who created the most persuasive America-bashing essay.

[JerkClock]

At 11/25/07 11:18 AM, Greensinge wrote:
How and why have the United States been involved in any wars? (WW1/WW2/Vietnam/Iraq 1/Iraq 2)

Various reasons dependingon the war. If your professor wants a general answer, there isn't one. All I can tell you is pay attention in class and try to discern the answer he wants you to tell him.

On how many occassions has the United States used a Nuclear Weapon, in both War and test situations?

237

What are the United States policies on Nuclear Weapons today?

Be prepared to use them at all times in this hostile world, but only as a last resort.

How have they changed?

We use more caution with them since other countries now have them as well, but even in WW2 it was only created and used as a last resort to end a years long war.

What do the people of America think of these policies? (the last question there isn't necessarily important, because it may be a bit difficult to find this answer)

No answer, opinions are mixed. Again, tell your professor what he wants to hear.

What is the defence budget in the United States?

$1.2 trillion

It would be very helpful to know these figures as a percentage against the rest of the country's spending..

16%

How many nuclear weapons do we know exist in the world today and who owns what?

1412

501 in the US, 476 in Russia, 228 in china, 47 in North Korea, 87 in India, 73 in Pakistan.

[Greensinge]

Thanks a lot to all who gave useful answers to most of my questions.

Consider this thread closed, as I don't want to be seen as lazy or cheating! I simply needed some information in a hurry so I could get some kind of guidelines for what possible answers and figures there might be so I can look them up in google or whatever with more specific details.

For the gentleman who thinks that the subject I am writing about is all about 'American-Bashing', then think nothing of the sort. The question was written by myself, (which is what everybody had to do), and though it may look like an excuse to find as many anti-America-related things as possible, it actually isn't. The point of the dissertation, as you should already know if your commenting on them, is that I pick a question and research it to find every side of the arguement and come to my own conclusions. The question may seem initially America-hating, but it's simply a basis for researching something I find rather interesting.

Thanks guys!

[Imperator]

At 11/26/07 10:47 AM, Greensinge wrote: Thanks a lot to all who gave useful answers to most of my questions.

Yeah, good luck.

Since you're British, if you say anything other than "America fought for its economy and because the Jews control it" then you're going to fail.

Cellardoor this isn't a test, it's a dissertation.

This isn't another "anti-US paper" like you think, because dissertations have to be unique and add to the body of knowledge in his field.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 05:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 11/26/07 10:47 AM, Greensinge wrote: Thanks a lot to all who gave useful answers to most of my questions.

Yeah, good luck.

Lol, even though basically all the information you gave him was wrong.

Since you're British, if you say anything other than "America fought for its economy and because the Jews control it" then you're going to fail.

Cellardoor this isn't a test, it's a dissertation.

Irrelevant, thanks.

This isn't another "anti-US paper" like you think, because dissertations have to be unique and add to the body of knowledge in his field.

It's a thesis... that's what dissertations are. There is a lot of room to be anti-American based on the questions. It's going to ignore the context, and create something that is about the US only which will UNDOUBTEDLY end up with US-bashing as the theme.

[Imperator]

If you're gonna talk about "failing" then get your shit right. There is no "failing" a dissertation. Either the board passes it or rejects it. Irrelevant my ass.....

It's going to ignore the context, and create something that is about the US only which will UNDOUBTEDLY end up with US-bashing as the theme.

Have you ever read dissertations? They're usually fairly level in terms of politics. Unis don't let people publish shit that's going to be "undoubtedly" biased.....cuz it looks bad for the Uni.

for chrissakes, I've read shit titled "The Normality of the Holocaust".....
Do you think titles like that are pushing political agendas?

....or are you just so stubborn in your mind that anything that even looks like it will portray the US in a negative manner is automatically termed false and "Us-Bashing"?

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 07:26 PM, Imperator wrote: If you're gonna talk about "failing" then get your shit right. There is no "failing" a dissertation. Either the board passes it or rejects it. Irrelevant my ass.....

You can too fail a dissertation. In case you didn't know, it's a thesis paper. The student is sharing their information they've learned. It's supposed to be critical thinking... and in an atmosphere where "critical" thinking in politics is biased from the beginning... it's obvious how it will turn out.

I don't know what kind of weird system your school has, but people were graded on thesis papers at my school.

I was suggesting that unless the posture of his thesis paper is biased against the US, which can easily be done even with a thesis paper, then he will fail because people will consider it to be less objective. In liberal avademic environments, especially in the UK, anti-Americanism is considered objective. It's obvious that if the paper is confrontational and is tilted to an anti-American light, it will be considered more witty and heady, and therefore more likely to get good marks.

It's going to ignore the context, and create something that is about the US only which will UNDOUBTEDLY end up with US-bashing as the theme.

Have you ever read dissertations? They're usually fairly level in terms of politics. Unis don't let people publish shit that's going to be "undoubtedly" biased.....cuz it looks bad for the Uni.

Read the questions he asked.

It's obvious that it is presented in a US-centric way, and there will be little context compared to other countries. It's set up from the beginning the steer the possible outcome into US-bashing.

....or are you just so stubborn in your mind that anything that even looks like it will portray the US in a negative manner is automatically termed false and "Us-Bashing"?

Lol.

A paper that is focused on the US and the US nuclear program will obviously be used to bash the US. And in the UK, US-bashing is both status quo, it's the norm. If someone broke from the mold and too an objective stance by providing context and relative comparison given the situation in the world, and the actions of other countries... that would be less pleasing to liberal professors in a liberal environment that is overwhelmingly anti-American.

[Imperator]

I don't know what kind of weird system your school has, but people were graded on thesis papers at my school.

Those are undergrad papers. There's a difference.
When he used the term dissertation and gave the word length I think it's more likely he's talking about a Masters or Ph.D document.

It's obvious that if the paper is confrontational and is tilted to an anti-American light, it will be considered more witty and heady, and therefore more likely to get good marks.

Where do you get this crap from?

Read the questions he asked.

It's obvious he's writing a paper based on violence in the entertainment industry. No different than any study relating violence on TV and violence in a community. Nothing anti-american about it, you just have a problem with it because he happens to be British.

A paper that is focused on the US and the US nuclear program will obviously be used to bash the US

Obviously. Because that's the only way a foreigner can write about America in an academic setting.

Seriously, step back for a minute and think about what you accuse people of for once......

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 07:54 PM, Imperator wrote:

I don't know what kind of weird system your school has, but people were graded on thesis papers at my school.

Those are undergrad papers. There's a difference.
When he used the term dissertation and gave the word length I think it's more likely he's talking about a Masters or Ph.D document.

Um wrong.

In the UK they use the term dissertation for undergrads. They use the term thesis for Masters or PhD classes.

I told you it's a thesis because in the US we use the word "thesis" for every college level, except RARELY when it's for a doctorate it will be called a dissertation.

Where do you get this crap from?

Read the questions. It's obvious where what the theme will be.

It's obvious he's writing a paper based on violence in the entertainment industry.

In addition to the US and its nukes.

No different than any study relating violence on TV and violence in a community. Nothing anti-american about it, you just have a problem with it because he happens to be British.

I have a problem with it's obvious that the very foundation of the assignment is intended to be critical of the US. There is not much room for there to be anything positive said about the US, it will be purely critical and the lack of context, the lack of any question that would even require any context is clearly designed that way.

A paper that is focused on the US and the US nuclear program will obviously be used to bash the US

Obviously. Because that's the only way a foreigner can write about America in an academic setting.

You've obviously know nothing about what you're talking about. Have you ever even left the US?

British society, especially its educational atmosphere, is overwhelmingly anti-American. They are very biased in how they teach things, and how they want their students to perceive things. Focusing on the US only about the nuclear issue allows people to avoid addressing the larger context. Then rounding it off with the bit about American media's influence in getting Americans to defend war and "excessive force".

If you can't see where it is intended to go... then wow.

Seriously, step back for a minute and think about what you accuse people of for once......

Step back and realize that what I said was entirely reasonable and correct.

[Imperator]

In the UK they use the term dissertation for undergrads. They use the term thesis for Masters or PhD classes.

Ah, that I did not know. Thank you.

You've obviously know nothing about what you're talking about. Have you ever even left the US?

Wait, you're making claims that foreign education systems are geared towards anti-americanism and I'm the one who's spacing out? Please....talk about broad sweeping accusations.....

The paper's meant to examine violence. There's not a whole lot of room for ANYTHING positive to be said about the topic. Would you rather his paper justify violence and call it "fair and balanced" because it's pro-us?

If you can't see where it is intended to go... then wow.

The fact that you're ASSuming something that the author has already commented on? Yeah, "wow" is my line.

Been to Sheffield once, might be in Rome next fall for a term.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 08:24 PM, Imperator wrote:

In the UK they use the term dissertation for undergrads. They use the term thesis for Masters or PhD classes.

Ah, that I did not know. Thank you.

M'kay.

You've obviously know nothing about what you're talking about. Have you ever even left the US?

Wait, you're making claims that foreign education systems are geared towards anti-americanism and I'm the one who's spacing out?

I've actually seen foreign education systems. I know that they are geared towards anti-Americanism. Their desire to bash the US is reflected in their education system, from the top down.

Please....talk about broad sweeping accusations.....

Of course it depends on the country and their varying degree of anti-Americanism. But British education, especially their universities, are pretty biased. It's not some broad sweeping accusation because it's pretty obvious and pretty well known.

They aren't as militantly anti-American in their education compared to say... Saudi Arabia, but there is a clear overtone in their education in political matters. The US is the scapegoat.

The paper's meant to examine violence.

Um it's meant to give a critique on how Americans are supposedly influenced by the media to support violence and war, in addition to discussion of the US nuclear situation.

There's not a whole lot of room for ANYTHING positive to be said about the topic.

Yes, because when you focus on one single country in lieu of a subject about "excessive force" and "war", it's going to create an overtly negative depiction of the US... without context. It's pretty damn obvious that it's intended to be a critique that will end up with saying Americans are driven to support war by nationalistic sentiments with the media as the vehicle that brings it about.

It's going to talk about that and since it's only the US being discussed, it will be without context in comparison to other countries to create an objective analysis. If you only look at one country, then whatever will seem bad will seem relatively bad because there will be no other group to compare it to in order to provide contrast.

Would you rather his paper justify violence and call it "fair and balanced" because it's pro-us?

It would be better if the question didn't have an assumption within it from the beggining.

A better question would be:

"How does US media play a role in how war is perceived by the public?"

That would be fair and balanced pretext for a thesis.

But HIS question was:

"How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?"

This question is set up with the pretext that the US media already does this. This question makes two judgments from the get go. A) that the force the US uses is "excessive" B) That the US media is justifying it to get the public on board for something that is unnecessary hence "excessive". This question assumes things, thus making the answer skewed in its ability to be objective.

This narrows down the outcome or conclusion that could be made. It is a question posed with a bias as its foundation. It would be like asking a question like "Given that Bush is the worst president ever, why shouldn't we impeach him". A question posed in this manner shows a bias from the beginning... thus making the conclusion as the answer certain to be biased as well.

[Imperator]

Cell the question is set up so that he can discover for himself whether or not the media legitimizes violence.

If he finds out there isn't any justification, he answers his question with the statement "none".

seriously, step back and look at what you're accusing him of.

Then look at his reply, and my subsequent replies. Why is it both of us understand it's not designed to be an anti-american paper but you're having problems with it?

And sorry, but I don't buy this modern renaissance man story you're giving me about "knowing" all these foreign education systems.....

I think you're burying your head to the fact that what you see as an attack is really just a critical, academic look at a situation.

Hence this whole obsession with the "liberal propaganda machine" you know as higher education....

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 09:50 PM, Imperator wrote: Cell the question is set up so that he can discover for himself whether or not the media legitimizes violence.

Lol no it's not, it's set up that with the pretext that the US media already does this for certain.. and it's about HOW it does it.

It's biased from the beginning.

READ:

"How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?"

Anyone who thinks that is a fair or objective question is absolutely out of their mind.

Based on that question, there is no room for argument about whether or not what the US military does is excessive in the first place. Nor is there any room to debate whether or not Mainstream American film and media justifies it. The second part of the question is compounded in bias by the fact that the first part of the question claims there is something that needs defending in the first place... excessive force.

It's making two judgments from the beginning that are debatable but that the question excludes from debate!!!,

The question is alluding that two things are certain, and it's steering the answer to consider those 2 things as foundational... when they are actually politically biased opinions.

If he finds out there isn't any justification, he answers his question with the statement "none".

Lol, that would make a great thesis.

seriously, step back and look at what you're accusing him of.

Step back and accept reality. The question itself is biased, therefore the conclusion will be tainted by bias.

That's like making a question like:

"Given the fact that Bush is evil and a horrible president, how does the FOX news lie about it and make people believe those lies to have a false positive view of him?"

I think you're burying your head to the fact that what you see as an attack is really just a critical, academic look at a situation.

Lol critical? The question contains a judgment from the beginning, making any answer or conclusion tainted by it. It should be a hypothetical, but it's not. It's making a judgment and claiming it as a given, and asking for that judgment to to be elaborated on without the judgment even being the point of debate.

Hence this whole obsession with the "liberal propaganda machine" you know as higher education....

Lol.

[badboy92]

How and why have the United States been involved in any wars? (WW1/WW2/Vietnam/Iraq 1/Iraq 2)
Ok, as this has been answered several times, in much the same way anyone could answer it. Therefore, I won't give you MY idea..But a few links that may help, REMEMBER, do NOT copy this down directly, there are programs that are used to find a list of sites that contain information.
http://threeworldwars.com/
http://www.learnhistory.org.uk/vietnam/r easons.htm

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/
MidEast/05/smithSt/index.html

On how many occassions has the United States used a Nuclear Weapon, in both War and test situations?Two times in war situations, both on Japan. In test situations, I don't know a number.

What are the United States policies on Nuclear Weapons today?The United States maintains a policy of Nuclear Disarmament, though it has been said that Nuclear Weapons will remain the cornerstone of US defense.
How have they changed?It the past it was seen as a form of immense inter-national power, and a way to thwart the socialist regime of Stalin's Socialist Army.
What do the people of America think of these policies? This question can be hard to answer (And as you said probably isn't as important) Because it can differ greatly from one day to the next, debates exist all over the web, in peoples houses, and even in schools around America that have opinions that can differ and change at various times. Your best bet would be to either take a poll of an area equivalent to a scale population of the U.S. or not include this in your project.

What is the defence budget in the United States? World military spending $1,100 billion US Military spending $623 billion All but USA $500 billion.(The first number is a rounded down number as you can see)http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita ry/world/spending.htm

How many nuclear weapons do we know exist in the world today and who owns what?The United States maintains an arsenal of at least 10,000 warheadsFrom WikipediaFrom the about 65,000 Nuclear Warheads known active in 1985, there are about 20,000 left active in the world today.States(Countries) with active warheads.

[Imperator]

You need to not look at this from a math perspective. The question of whether or not violence is justified in contained within the thesis question.

He has to explore the question of "if" in order to answer the question of how. That's the way term papers work babe. You ask a specific, but it's assumed you will explore the basic question and get that out of the way first.

Read any book on racism, they're structured pretty much the same way. The thesis question "assumes" that racism exists, but a significant portion of the work is dedicated to exploring whether or not there is racism at all.

I've got one book called "States of Violence". With your mindset, the title assumes they exist. Yet I swear the first line of the book is "Are there States of Violence?"

In your own question:
"How does US media play a role in how war is perceived by the public?"

You would have to show that the US media DOES play a role in how war is perceived before going into the how. Likewise you're "assuming" that it plays a role, but the question itself demands that you answer whether or not that is true.

Step back and accept reality.

Whatever you consider reality I'm happy to steer clear of.

Anyone who thinks that is a fair or objective question is absolutely out of their mind.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Don't stray too far, wouldn't want Miss 7Cs to ban you for flaming....again.....

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 10:28 PM, Imperator wrote: You need to not look at this from a math perspective. The question of whether or not violence is justified in contained within the thesis question.

No it's not.

"How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?"

This question is asking HOW the US media justified excessive force and war. It's asking for an answer and conclusion that revolves around two preconceived notions:

A) The US uses excessive force.
B) That US media needs to defend it, and does.

The question asks HOW the US does B, based on both A and B being certain.

Those two things are not the point of the debate even though they should be.

He has to explore the question of "if" in order to answer the question of how.

There is no "if". There is no "does". The question is "how" which implies that the US both uses excessive and war, in addition to using the media to justify it.

That's the way term papers work babe. You ask a specific, but it's assumed you will explore the basic question and get that out of the way first.

LOL! Papers shouldn't have a biased question. It shouldn't presume things and have the question based on those presumptions as if they are fact... all while they are highly debatable, yet are exluded form debate based on the criteria of the question.

Once again, a better question that isn't biased would be:

"Does US media play a role in how war is perceived by the public? If so, how?"

There is no presumption in this question, it creates an opening for it to be debated either way. This question allows for it to be argued either that the US war efforts are reasonable, and whether or not they need defending by the media. There is no judgment in THIS question.

THAT is a good starting question for a thesis.

The question that you keep defending presumes that the US uses excessive force in war as a given fact, and also that the US media plays a role in justifying this excessive force as a given fact.

BIASED.

Whatever you consider reality I'm happy to steer clear of.

Lol

Don't stray too far, wouldn't want Miss 7Cs to ban you for flaming....again.....

Thanks for diverting attention from the topic again.

[Imperator]

Once again, a better question that isn't biased would be:
"Does US media play a role in how war is perceived by the public? If so, how?"

But that doesn't explore what he wants to explore. So not really.

This question is asking HOW the US media justified excessive force and war. It's asking for an answer and conclusion that revolves around two preconceived notions:

Both of which he must explore before getting to the bulk of his paper. What's so hard about accepting this? Have you written term papers before? Have you read dissertations before?
Seriously.

Lemme ask you, cause I already have a decent idea of what's goin on with this; what do you think his paper is going to explore? What examples do you think he's gonna use
I have a feeling you're reading this statement in such an bizarre way that we'll have different answers on this.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/07 11:29 PM, Imperator wrote:

Once again, a better question that isn't biased would be:
"Does US media play a role in how war is perceived by the public? If so, how?"

But that doesn't explore what he wants to explore. So not really.

Lol... you mean it doesn't narrow down the argument into a single frame of thought, a single perception?

The question I provided actually allows for the argument to be made whether or not the US uses excessive force in the first place and whether or no the media plays a role in defending it, and how it defends it if this argument could be made that it does/does need to.

Unlike the question he provided, it creates options. It isn't biased or presumptuous from the beginning. It is not tainted by bias like his first question, someone could make either argument by following the outlines of my question.

Seriously, actually read what his question was:

"How is War and Excessive Force justified in Mainstream American Film and Media?"

This question would require the conclusion to be biased because the outline of the question makes use of a pretext that is already in detriment to the US. It assumes the US uses excessive force, and it assumes that the US media justifies the use excessive force. Thus it is alluding to and presuming wrong doing by the US, and wrong doing of the US media by justifying wrong doing.

The question he provided is biased.

This question is asking HOW the US media justified excessive force and war. It's asking for an answer and conclusion that revolves around two preconceived notions:

Both of which he must explore before getting to the bulk of his paper. What's so hard about accepting this?

Um maybe because I tend not to accept things that are dishonest and/or wrong maybe?

His question allows him to avoid the debate of whether or not the US actually uses excessive force and war, or whether or not the US media justifies excessive force and war.

His question does not ask for this to be explored. In fact his question allows the answer to bypass any exploration and consider preconceived OPINIONS to be considered as factual and foundational to the thesis.

Have you written term papers before? Have you read dissertations before?

Lol yeah.

Except, I couldn't presume things as the basis of the paper. Since what the subjects I took were non-political, there was no room for opinion.

Seriously.

Lemme ask you, cause I already have a decent idea of what's goin on with this; what do you think his paper is going to explore? What examples do you think he's gonna use

Based on that question, he already assumes that the US uses excessive force and goes to war, with the US media justifying these things. Therefore he would explore what he considers to be pro-war media coverage, and use this to support his case that US media gives the US public an overtly pro-war outlook, by deceiving them. This is all under the presumptions he made from the beginning... thus giving false credibility to the presumptions that are within the very question his thesis would be based on.

[Imperator]

The question I provided actually allows for the argument to be made whether or not the US uses excessive force in the first place and whether or no the media plays a role in defending it, and how it defends it if this argument could be made that it does/does need to.

Based on that question, I would not have assumed that violence, or the excess of it would have played ANY part in your paper. A violent event is not indicative of a war. I would have been looking at the major wars the US has been in, and how the media portrays them.

His question allows him to avoid the debate of whether or not the US actually uses excessive force and war, or whether or not the US media justifies excessive force and war.

In our little world, it's the opposite. His question demands he answers both first, and defend his positions in order to move on to his special interest. There's nothing wrong with his question as long as he can back up his opinion, which it is required that he do so in his work. If he can't back up that the media condones excessive violence, or that excessive violence occurs, he will lose points.

Your papers obviously weren't given the free range to explore such things, because you see that question as stating absolutely things as facts, whereas both of us see them as exploration.

See what I see him examining are how the government put out old war movies like in WWII to boost morale, and how Hollywood movies glorify warfare or violent events.

Because I know you love them so much:

Every question about "How Rome fell" inherently assumes the author will address both "Did Rome fall" and "when", EVEN THOUGH the question only says "How".

Welcome to the free range of liberal arts majors.