popsjumper 2 #1 June 29, 2005 <<<>>> This has been previously posted as noted by one......uh....SC poster. IF the press reported the D-Day Invasion of WWII today, this is what it would probably be like: HOW THE D-DAY INVASION WOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler." The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed." Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune." Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven. Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up. ......................................... Edited to add Warning....My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #2 June 30, 2005 Yawn! Only a year late. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1170357#1170357... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #3 June 30, 2005 still the truth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #4 June 30, 2005 Quotestill the truth No, it's a fantasy. There is a difference between fantasy and truth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #5 June 30, 2005 new to some of us....My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #6 June 30, 2005 QuoteQuotestill the truth No, it's a fantasy. There is a difference between fantasy and truth. so argumentative...sheesh...My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #7 June 30, 2005 QuoteShortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven. Surprisingly enough this part is quite accurate. The US ambassador to Great Britain did try to cover up Hitlers treatment of the jews.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #8 June 30, 2005 Here's a great piece by Cavuto on this topic. It's just good food for thought. Just read it, think about it. What if.... ---------------------------------------------- The Will to Win Monday, June 27, 2005 By Neil Cavuto I wonder what would have happened if there were television crews at Valley Forge when Washington's troops were freezing and the British were winning. Or when Union troops were getting their butts kicked in battle after battle, month after month, in the early days of the Civil War. Or in the many months after Pearl Harbor was attacked and the Japanese were scoring one victory after another in the Pacific. What if cameras were there and the relentless headlines were everywhere? What would we make of the casualty counts, the losing battles and the hopeless reports? What would we have done? Would we second-guess Washington? Or Lincoln? Or Roosevelt? Probably. I don't know. But this much I do know: History would be very different. Maybe the public appetite for bad news at the time would have trumped the record of good news that came after that time. Maybe we would have quit, stopped, put down our arms and moved on. I suspect we'd still be under British rule, or a divided nation after a Civil War, or a losing nation after a World War. Thank God we were patient then. I wonder if we're patient now. Then we didn't have the luxury of journalists second-guessing soldiers. Now I wonder whether our soldiers worry we're second-guessing something else: their mission. I have no doubt we can win this war. I have serious doubts whether some in the media even want us to. ---------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #9 June 30, 2005 And of course the FOX News story a short time later: VICTORY AT PEARL HARBOR GOP leader calls naysayers 'traitors' December 15th, 1941 HONOLULU - In a blistering attack on Democrats in the Senate who have expressed outrage over the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) suggested that anyone who called the attack a defeat for the USA was a 'traitor.' "We have the finest fighting force in the world," said Taft, speaking during a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the Rayburn Building. "Anyone who claims we 'lost' at Pearl Harbor is aiding the enemy. And we know what the penalty for aiding the enemy is. We can do better than be traitors to our own country." "We lost 2403 men, 188 aircraft and 8 battleships, and the Japanese only lost 20 planes or so" said Burton K. Wheeler (D-Montana), speaking to reporters after the meeting. "That would seem a defeat no matter how you look at it." "The democrats are lying!" said GOP Spokesman Alan Harding, in a rebuttal given to FOX News. "Only four battleships actually sank. And the Arizona didn't quite sink all the way. And this is a defeat? Why, in the Mississippi River alone, six cargo ships sank last year. Will Mr. Wheeler call that a defeat for America?" Senator Taft agreed with this sentiment. "The Japanese are in the last throes of their aggression," he said during a news conference on Saturday. "We will easily defeat them. The war might last six days, six weeks - not six months. And once we arrive on the island of Japan itself, we will be greeted as liberators." In a related development, Senator Harry Truman (D-Missouri) chairman of the Senate Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, came under attack for his investigation into defense-spending excesses. "It's clear where the blame for any problems with our defenses lie," said Taft. "It's the scrimp-and-save liberals who want to hamstring our defenses that are ultimately to blame for any perceived weakness in our armed forces." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #10 June 30, 2005 Haha, I actually did enjoy reading that bill. Creative and good. However, the point I think Cavuto was trying to make is not about the Dems and GOP arguing back and forth, but about our patience as a country. Yes, I think Bush may have promoted the idea to the American people that the brunt of the war would be over sooner, he thought so. However, he didn't say we'd be out of Iraq in six weeks. He knew from the get go that it'd be a long, hard push. Maybe he was wrong on the lenght of the brunt of war, but as far as the amount of time we are in that country, that was never said to be only 6 weeks. Cavuto wonders what would have happened had we had the attitude we do today about yesterday's wars. I'm saddened by 2000 dead Americans, it's horrible. But what would the people of today say about WWII, where 300,000 American soldiers were killed and the same amount injured. 2,000 seems so small compared to that, yet people go insane. The point is, the media focuses so much on the negatives, that the population do not see the positives. When there wasn't media like this back in the day, people were more patient and willing to let the terrible course or war run for the greater good in the end. Maybe this attitude was just of that time period, or maybe this attitude was because of the lack of massive negative news that we see today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #11 June 30, 2005 >I'm saddened by 2000 dead Americans, it's horrible. But what would > the people of today say about WWII, where 300,000 American > soldiers were killed and the same amount injured. 2,000 seems so > small compared to that, yet people go insane. If Saddam Hussein had attacked us (say, if he bombed Miami) I would have been all for not only killing him and his military leaders but taking over Iraq permanently. That didn't happen. 300,000 people dying to defend their country from someone who attacked it is a tragedy, but a neccessary one. 2000 people dying to make sure the PNAC plans are fulfilled is not a neccessary sacrifice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #12 July 3, 2005 QuoteIf Saddam Hussein had attacked us (say, if he bombed Miami) I would have been all for not only killing him and his military leaders but taking over Iraq permanently. That didn't happen. Then by that statement you are also completely against the European theatre in WWII. Let's go back to Billvon in 1939 - "If Hitler had attacked us (say, if he bombed New York) I would have been all for not only killing him and his military leaders but taking over Germany permanently. That didn't happen." Well, Hitler didn't attack us. So, by your statement above, you would also be against our operations against the Germans. However, I assume you are glad we did what we did in WWII. It was the right thing to do, agreed? So, why the vast problem with Iraq? Hitler didn't attack, we attacked him b/c we felt the need. Saddam didn't attack us, we attacked him b/c we felt the need. There is no difference in the two operations based on this line of thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #13 July 3, 2005 QuoteHitler didn't attack..... No, but he did declare war. And had been sinking merchant shipping just off the US coast.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #14 July 4, 2005 Nazi Germany declared war on the USA, December 11th 1941. What, exactly, did you expect the US to do as a response, then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 July 4, 2005 Bluto: "Was it over when the Chinese bombed Pearl Harbor?" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #16 July 5, 2005 Well, Saddam declared war on democracy years ago by laughing at sanctions, laughing at humanity, funding terrorism and WMD research meant specifically to harm democratic countries, etc. He funded weapons research to specifically hurt our allies and in his hopes, the US. He may have not said the words, "declare war," but he did declare it through his actions. We could have sat back and said, "Hitler's far away, he's not directly hurting us now, what would waiting a little hurt?" Well, those exact words have been used repeatedly to describe Iraq. Well, waiting would mean more death and maybe more horrible attacks against the US. Both dictators declared war one way or another, it's just that everyone is fine with responding to one, but not so fine with responding to the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 July 5, 2005 Quotedeclared war on democracy years ago by laughing at sanctions, laughing at humanity, funding terrorism and WMD research meant specifically to harm democratic countries, etc. He funded weapons research to specifically hurt our allies and in his hopes, the US. He may have not said the words, "declare war," but he did declare it through his actions. Cool! When are we invading North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Sudan, and half the Indonesian subcontinent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #18 July 5, 2005 QuoteQuotedeclared war on democracy years ago by laughing at sanctions, laughing at humanity, funding terrorism and WMD research meant specifically to harm democratic countries, etc. He funded weapons research to specifically hurt our allies and in his hopes, the US. He may have not said the words, "declare war," but he did declare it through his actions. Cool! When are we invading North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Sudan, and half the Indonesian subcontinent? Switzerland, as demonstrated in the last America's Cup, is quietly building quite a fearsome Navy, and should probably be dealt with sooner than later. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #19 July 5, 2005 QuoteWe could have sat back and said, "Hitler's far away, he's not directly hurting us now, what would waiting a little hurt? Dude that is exactly what happened in WW2. The US waited until they were attacked by an ally of Nazi Germany and until Germany had expressly declared war in support of that ally.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #20 July 5, 2005 Quote...Cool! When are we invading North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Sudan, and half the Indonesian subcontinent? ...would Tuesday be OK? or ...I have mixed feelings....My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #21 July 5, 2005 Exactly....and you see how far along it got before teh US got into it....how many deaths could have been prevented had we got into it earlier, I wonder....I'm sure the European Jews living at that time also wonder.....My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #22 July 5, 2005 <> What? and have someone fight back? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverton 0 #23 July 5, 2005 Quote<<<>>> This has been previously posted as noted by one......uh....SC poster. IF the press reported the D-Day Invasion of WWII today, this is what it would probably be like: HOW THE D-DAY INVASION WOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune." This reason makes sense. German beer is a lot better than the stuff they sell in the US ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit, Especially when you are jumping a sport rig Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #24 July 5, 2005 QuoteExactly....and you see how far along it got before teh US got into it....how many deaths could have been prevented had we got into it earlier, I wonder....I'm sure the European Jews living at that time also wonder..... I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of US intervention in either Iraq or WW2, I'm arguing that the article posted is just stupid, and I believe quite strongly that it is very important for the press to be able to report on conflicts and foreign affairs.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #25 July 5, 2005 Quote...I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of US intervention in either Iraq or WW2, I'm arguing that the article posted is just stupid, and I believe quite strongly that it is very important for the press to be able to report on conflicts and foreign affairs. Agee with you all the way. The article is satire (or sarcasm - I still have trouble distinguishing the two even after English 101). However there is a ring of truth here....reporting is one thing...using the media to sway public opinion while claiming "reporting" is quite another. I'm old enough to remember when there was news reporting followed by an editorial....where have the editorials gone? Even the newspapers have an editorial page but it's only a reflection of the slant given in the "reporting" sections. It just amazes me that the general public is such a sheep that it will follow along with most anything the opinion developers say in the media. Don't think that opinion swaying goes on? Try comparing articles dealing with the same event as written by the left vs what gets written by the right.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
