The researchers found that parents’ TV viewing time had a stronger connection to children’s viewing time than did other factors such as rules about time limits, whether the children had a TV in the bedroom, and co-viewing. Each hour of parental TV time resulted in almost an additional half hour of viewing time for their children. The authors conclude that this information is useful for education efforts about screen time, and reinforces the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that “parents should be good media role models.”

Programs that are well designed and take into consideration children's developmental stages are more likely to have educational merit than shows not geared toward their healthy growth. Even more important than the content and construction of a show, however, is the role a caregiver can play. By watching with the child, a parent can find ways to interact during the viewing and take advantage of learning opportunities embedded in a program.

Despite marketing claims that some television programs and DVDs help infants and toddlers learn, recent studies show that TV provides only empty calories for a child’s growing brain. The following research brief reviews the evidence that parents and caregivers of young children should take television off the menu.

Pediatricians are firmly against programing modified specifically for young children, particularly when it is utilized to market toys, games, dolls, unhealthy foods and other items to babies. Furthermore, television will discourage and replace reading. Reading needs much more thinking than TV, and we realize that perusing books encourages youngsters’ healthy brain improvement. Kids from families that have the TV on a lot invest less time reading and being read to and are less likely to be able to read.

television is a bad influence on kids, because watching TV at an early age can affect children’s brain development. For instance, the early years of a youngster are important to their development.

video games may help the development of fine motor skills and coordination, but many of the concerns about the negative effects of television (eg, inactivity, asocial behaviour and violence) also apply to excessive exposure to video games. Violent video games should be discouraged because they have harmful effects on children’s mental development

Second positive effect of television among children is that they acquire basic languages on it. Studies shows that if they watch educational programs, their tendency is to learn basic shapes, numbers, letters, etc. if their parents guided them (Lemish and Rice, 1986). However, Naigles and Mayeux (2001) found that in certain circumstances children learn words and their meanings from educational programs that are specifically design for them (age, content etc.)

Television has a great benefit among children as they get easily aware and connect about the physical happenings in their modern-faced society (Gunter and McAleer, 1997: xii-xiii).They also stated that television is not ‘one-eyed monster’ who waits to spread evil over the young members of the household. This is an implication that when a child watches a significant program that is – educational, informative, and values-promoted shows will increase their intellectual growth

There are a lot of educational shows which air on TV. It is a proven fact that children learn better using audio-video method instead of the traditional teaching via books. Many research studies have shown that children who watch TV are less violent and perform well in tests and studies as compared to the ones who don’t watch TV. Children who watch educational and informative TV shows develop their brain skills faster and learn things easily as compared to the ones who don’t watch TV. The kids who are going to start their school life get better grades, value their studies when they reach high school and become less aggressive. TV is a great way to remove tiredness and fatigue. We all know kids love cartoons and according to studies, cartoons have a soothing and painkilling effect on children. It helps in removing all the tiredness and all the stress your kid is having from daily school work. We know that there are both pros and cons of everything. We already have listed the positive points of TV and now we will share some negative points of TV with you

The influence of the media on the psychosocial development of children is profound. Thus, it is important for physicians to discuss with parents their child’s exposure to media and to provide guidance on age-appropriate use of all media, including television, radio, music, video games and the Internet.The objectives of this statement are to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of media on children’s mental and physical health, and to identify how physicians can counsel patients and their families and promote the healthy use of the media in their communities.

In today's 24/7 media environment, in which kids may be spending more time with media than they are with their parents, choosing positive role models is more important than ever. By the time kids are in middle school, they start to look to their peers for a sense of what's socially acceptable or desirable. Parents may remain the primary influence in their kids' lives, but the competition starts to get fierce at this age. This separation is entirely age appropriate. But when the media comes into play, the values you want to pass down to your kids may be competing against, say, Homer Simpson's.

Let older kids see things you don't agree with. But then discuss exactly what you don't like with them. Since we won't always be around, we need to make sure to instill critical-thinking skills in our kids.

Kids will be inspired by great historical figures, athletes, or TV stars. Take advantage of that adoration by pointing out their good traits, as in, "George Washington was honest. Honesty is an important quality." Not: "Lying is bad. Children who lie get in trouble."

Reinforce your values. Point out words and behavior in popular TV shows, websites, and music that are both positive and negative examples of what you do and don't want your kids to model. What you say to your child is up to you, but have the discussion.

The good news is that there are plenty of positive role models you can point to that may influence your kids to make healthy choices, learn to respect others, achieve goals, and avoid anti-social behavior. Negative role models -- especially ones who don't suffer consequences for their actions -- can encourage anti-social behavior, stereotypes, and even cruelty. Help your kids choose positive media role models who embody the values you want to pass down. Tips for parents of young kid

Influencers reach out to kids via TV, YouTube, video games, Twitter, and music -- all of which are broadcast or easily accessible 24 hours a day. And as we all know, not all the characters or people who gain popularity through these channels have stellar role-model credentials.

Keeping in mind that young children with developing minds watch many hours of television, and recalling how television reinforces gender stereotypes, it is not surprising when children develop stereotyped beliefs.

DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDRENAs children grow and develop, they take in information and acquire knowledge at a rapid pace. As they develop their cognitive abilities, they assimilate new information and accommodate it to what they already know (Piaget, 1954). Children's ideas about how the world works come from their experiences and from the attitudes and behaviors they see around them.

From the research statistics, it can be strongly recommended that parents can help their children make better use of television by scheduling media/television times, limiting children’s total screen time, and helping children and adolescents choose the program appropriate for their age and interests.

primary motive of the war - mobilising Iraqi oil production to sustain global oil flows and moderate global oil prices - has, so far, been fairly successful according to the International Energy Agency.

The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week was less to do with security of supply… than World shortage."

raq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion

On March 20, 2003, the United States began military action against Iraq for the stated purpose of deposing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and preventing his use of suspected nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction)

U.S. faces a hard set of choices, in a context shadowed by conflicting imperatives and the agendas of other regional powers. One can understand the caution shown by the administration -- at least as much as the zeal of those who want the U.S. to be embroiled in the region once more.

American power and Washington's ability to reshape facts on the ground. Petraeus's "Mosul model" is now just one more forgotten chapter in a long, bloody journey that began in 2003. The wishful thinking of U.S.  leadership in Iraq was on display in the build-up to the war, when its main proponents showed little appreciation for the resources and troops the U.S. would have to deploy in a near-decade long occupation

Saddam Hussein deserved to remain in power. But the security vacuum after his fall and the presence of foreign occupiers led to Iraq becoming a breeding ground for jihad and religious extremism.

The Iraqi politicians who found traction in U.S.-occupied Iraq did little to build an inclusive, pluralist politics. Nor did they have much incentive. Traumatized by decades of authoritarianism and indulged by foreign partners, they sought to consolidate their own political fiefdoms to the detriment of the fragile Iraqi state.

Saddam Hussein was a nasty, murderous tyrant who brutalized much of his country and was guilty of war crimes

It is widely agreed upon that Iraqi civilian deaths peak in July. But estimates, which hover between 1,000 and 3,500 for that month, vary greatly

December 2005 elections bring the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance into power, and in April 2006, the party names Nouri al-Maliki prime minister. Maliki is a longtime Iraqi politician with close ties to Iran.

Thirty-eight U.S. troops die, along with six Iraqi soldiers. The Pentagon estimates 1,200 insurgents are killed, and the Red Cross says eight hundred Iraqi civilians die with them.

In January 2004, David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons inspector, tells Congress: "We were almost all wrong." A presidential commission concludes in March 2005 "not one bit" of prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction panned out

Acting on tips from the dictator's bodyguard and family members, U.S. troops find Saddam Hussein hiding out in a one-man hole near his boyhood home of Tikrit.

L. Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, signs an order disbanding the Iraqi army and intelligence services, sending hundreds of thousands of well-armed men into the streets

Lawlessness and some skirmishing in the country are written off as the desperate acts of "dead-enders" by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

U.S., British, and other coalition forces quickly overwhelm the Iraqi Army, though elements loyal to Saddam Hussein who will form the core of a postwar insurgency fight on

President Bush announces U.S. forces have begun a military operation into Iraq. "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign," the president says

the events leading up to the 2003 invasion only go half way to explain why the US chose to launch this campaign, and in order to understand the complex and multidimensional factors contributing to the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, one must go back further and examine pre 9/11 US policy. Likewise, the official and publically stated reasons for military action only go some way to explain the invasion, and one must look at the unofficial factors and goals which were determinants of equal importance.

the Iraqi government had a difficult time recruiting and training police officers and soldiers to assume domestic security duties. The death of al-Qaeda in Iraq’s leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in June 2006 did nothing to reduce the violence.

Political violence continued to grow. Attacks directed at coalition forces, which had begun to rise in 2005, became even more violent and sophisticated. Yet it was attacks against Iraqi civilians, mostly in and around Baghdad, that consumed the attention of the international community as Shīʿite and Sunni militia and terror groups targeted members of the opposite group.

Responsible for countless killings and sabotage, the insurgents targeted coalition forces, new Iraqi security forces and recruitment centres, electrical installations, oil pipelines, and other civilian institutions

Major fighting ended by late April, but acts of common criminality continued, and, as the months passed, a pattern of concerted guerrilla warfare began to unfold. On December 13, 2003, Ṣaddām surrendered to U.S. troops when he was found hiding near Tikrīt, and other major figures from the regime were tracked down and arrested.

At the insistence of the United States, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, demanding that Iraq readmit inspectors and comply with all previous resolutions.

Americans believed that the initial decision to go to war in 2003 was the right one, and an even smaller number still supported the administration’s handling of the situation in Iraq.

Bush’s prewar claims, the failure of U.S. intelligence services to correctly gauge Iraq’s weapon-making capacity, and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction—the Bush administration’s primary rationale for going to war—became major political debating points.

American opinions on the war sometimes crossed traditional party lines and doctrinal affiliation, with many to the right of the avowedly conservative Bush seeing the war as an act of reckless internationalism and some to the political left—appalled by the Baʿthist regime’s brutal human rights violations and its consistent aggression—giving grudging support to military action

American cities in the lead-up to the invasion, many opinion polls showed considerable support for military action against Iraq before and during the war

The number of Iraqis who died during the conflict is uncertain. One estimate made in late 2006 put the total at more than 650,000 between the U.S.-led invasion and October 2006, but many other reported estimates put the figures for the same period at about 40,000 to 50,000.

deaths of U.S. troops soared thereafter, reaching some 1,000 by the time of the U.S. presidential election in November 2004 and surpassing 3,000 in early 2007; in addition, several hundred soldiers from other coalition countries have been killed

Iraq’s major cities erupted in a wave of looting that was directed mostly at government offices and other public institutions, and there were severe outbreaks of violence—both common criminal violence and acts of reprisal against the former ruling clique.

The military clash originated in Saddam Hussein's decision, in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War, to seek territorial and economic gains at the expense of Kuwait. In 1989 and 1990, Hussein signaled a growing intention to use force to against the tiny emirate.

Hussein constructively—while ignoring his abysmal human rights and foreign policy records—on the calculation that firmer measures might actually provoke the very aggressive behavior that the United States hoped to prevent.

When tensions rose and Hussein moved 100,000 troops to the Kuwait border, Bush also bolstered the U.S. naval presence in the Gulf and warned Hussein against instigating military action.