Why is it that the media expects all military action to be done with no "non-combatant casualties" and then flames the government for spending all that money on developing smart bombs and other means of combat that are intended to reduce the casualties? isnt the media asking for too much. they're saying, "we dont want you to kill civilians but dont spend any money to figure out how. just do it." its impossible. the media must concede on one end or the other. either let civs die or let the govt spend.

what do you guys think about this situation? is the media just pointing fingers without any proposed solutions? and what can be done to resolve this situation?

They're basically malcontents on the subject of war. Most reporters seem to compare war with a SWAT team, they won't be happy until the day where all enemies are brought handcuffed into jails and all POWS have trials for whether they should be forced to stay in prison until the end of the war or not.

It's complete idiocy and lunacy but that's how these hippies think.

The press sells when there seems to be a problem. If things are fine, they must make sure it looks like they're not fine. That's their work.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

They're basically malcontents on the subject of war. Most reporters seem to compare war with a SWAT team, they won't be happy until the day where all enemies are brought handcuffed into jails and all POWS have trials for whether they should be forced to stay in prison until the end of the war or not.

It's complete idiocy and lunacy but that's how these hippies think.

Heh, nobody is pleased with how the media work, at least on that everybody agrees, "hippies"&"grunts" alike. Each one for their own reasons of course. THIS is a good base on which disputes could be solved