Propaganda & Mass Persuasion: Civilian Death Rates Low

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Civilian Death Rates Low

In an article dated on July 23, 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfield stated that the civilian death rates were low compared to any other war in history. Many would agree that it is a sad fact that there are even civilian death rates. Rumsfield said, " It's an unfortunate fact of war that, inevitably, innocent civilians are killed.
The question that develops is, why are so many civilians killed? The article focuses on how American commanders relied on inaccurate information but Rumsfield beliefs differed from those who believed that. The article states, ' Mr. Rumsfield rejected assertions that America and its allies had been duped into attacking innocent civilians or had fallen prey to false tips from warlords or other regional leaders hoping the military would kill rival fighters'.


Blogger A. Mattson said...

A key question.

Was Rumsfeld correct? Are the current conflicts less bloody than previous wars? Why? Does the actual low number of casualties make a difference in this high speed media world where one gory picture can circle the globe in minutes?

Are Rumsfeld's arguments valid? Or are inaccuracy and rumors of mass killings still a part of intensive warfare even in this digital age of precision warfare?

4/16/2007 9:31 PM  
Blogger bdenoyer said...

well they were very smart i mean its all how you look at because yes Rumsfeld was right the civilian death toll was much lower than the other wars but that is becuase we havent droped nuc's or anything like that leveling whole cities so i mean its a great stratgy to just go by numbers not by years at war or things that would show the reasoning for the numbers

4/24/2007 12:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home