Oil or blood?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20750
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 19:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Oil or blood?
Posted By: pekau
Subject: Oil or blood?
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 17:54
|
I feel that more and more media about West's need for oil is being released to the public more than ever. There are many movies showing that the West is willing to play dirty to get hold on the oil reserves and pipelines, even if the actions raise the moral and ethical questions.
No, I am not accusing West as the "Great Satan". When people are desparate to hold on to their power, money and security, anyone would do the same... especially when the vital resources are limited on this planet. My question is... why are the governments around the world allowing these movies and other form of media to be released to the public? I know it matters little, because no matter how many sad stories, videoes or other evidences that display the inhumanity of man we see, there's nothing we will do about it... other than maybe writing checks that would, again, benefit much of the aiders rather than those that need aid... but why would government allow such thing to spread to public. It's something that we all want to forget about... so why do we let it surface it to the public? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Replies:
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 19:28
|
Do the countries in questions embrace freedom of speech? If yes then theres your answer. Goverments may secretly wish to make some movies go away, but in socieities where freedom of speech is practicly a religion, going against it is political suicide, especialy if you want to be re-elected. Seeing as the people making movies criticising their country's foriegn policy or whatever often are not exactly marginal nobodies, its kind of hard to supress their work without being noticed. Not that any sane government wouldn't try, simply ignoring, dismissing them as alarmist, or even discrediting them is a much safer approach. Censorship is more likely to be done by private parties; shops, cenemas, movie producing studios and distributers, and TV networks and such; than by government these days. -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 18:28
It was long ago realized in the study of public opinion that if you ban a thing, the public will often automatically perceive it as both credible and threatening to the government and will be attracted to it. It has also long been acknowledged that a thing outlawed almost never means it is completely discouraged, otherwise we would not have murders or traffic violations. Information is particularly difficult to control. All that really can be done is to prevent information from being presented through certain channels deemed more credible than other channels. This is fairly simple, because it is much less ambitious than attempting to prevent transmission through all channels. |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 10:37
|
One of the mods signature is ' Never believe in something until it is officially denied', I cant remember who said it. But the meaning remains, it would be worse to ban a topic than to let it be distributed openly. Plus, most western people see the true value of democracy existing in its purest form within the bastion of free speech, so people would probably rebel against their government if this was removed. And no government wants to be overthrown. ------------- |