Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095

    How would the D-day invasion be reported today by the media.

    How would the D-day invasion be reported today by the media.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subject: How would the D-day invasion be reported today by the media.


    (Author and source unknown)
    How Would the D-Day Invasion be Reported today?

    (This is what you would hear if Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokow or the rest of today's media reporting on D-Day at Normandy)
    (I regret I do not know the author of this piece which was forwarded by a friend.)

    June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more 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 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, 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 Americans. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored but so far, remains unproven.

    Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses 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 clean it up."

  2. #2
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    alright jdawg thats the line The author is unknown for a reason, he/she/it knew this is total crap when they wrote it. The entire country was behind the allied forces in WWII and what they had to get done. They were fighting one of the most evil men the world has ever seen (makes sadam and osama look like santy clause). Everybody posts their propaganda stuff here and there and if that tickles your pickle then cool. But this is absurd.

  3. #3
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    What, did you even read it... Sound pretty right on to me! lol I think it pretty funny, and Sad at the same time.

  4. #4
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    yeah i read it. i just dont think its accurate at all. There is a WORLD of difference between what is going on now and the D-day invasion. nobody in america would criticize it. not even the presidents most malicious enemies.

  5. #5
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    They would bring a camera crew down to the Anti-War Protestors and report while scenes of hippys dancing in the back ground waving tasles in their hands. While reporting how all the world leaders are calling it an unjust war or illegal war. Afterwards they would show clips of Gore screaming at the top of his lungs that "We went it ALONE!!!!!!!'' and that "we stirred up a hornets nest".. They would probally then break to a clip of kerry calling all our soldiers war criminals!!!

  6. #6
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    They would bring a camera crew down to the Anti-War Protestors and report while scenes of hippys dancing in the back ground waving tasles in their hands. While reporting how all the world leaders are calling it an unjust war or illegal war. Afterwards they would show clips of Gore screaming at the top of his lungs that "We went it ALONE!!!!!!!'' and that "we stirred up a hornets nest".. They would probally then break to a clip of kerry calling all our soldiers war criminals!!!

    LOL
    exactly.... Hey Sym, love ya brotha, but have you ever seen Kerry's speech before congress in the 70's? Disgraceful!

  7. #7
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    oh please. stop this right now. Im sure you took history class. Im sure you've read books. Hell my grandfather jumped with the 82nd during operation overlord. The ENTIRE country was behind it. BOYS lied about their age to join the army and fight. Why do you think nobody is lying about their age to go to Iraq? I'll thell you what, it aint because of what dan rather is reporting.

  8. #8
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    LOL
    exactly.... Hey Sym, love ya brotha, but have you ever seen Kerry's speech before congress in the 70's? Disgraceful!
    aww come on brutha, you know ive got no love for kerry. In fact, if I wasnt so caught up in the rise and fall of the third reich i'd read unfit for command

    stay swole

  9. #9
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    When I'm done with it, I'll send it to ya! I'm about 1/2 way. I read it when I do cardio.. So you know I don't get a lot of reading in!!!!!!!!

  10. #10
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    i tried reading when i did cardio, and I see all these people doing it, but I cant for the life of me get it down. is there something wrong with me?

  11. #11
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    i tried reading when i did cardio, and I see all these people doing it, but I cant for the life of me get it down. is there something wrong with me?
    I can only do it on the bike bro... Low impact wussy cardio. Otherwise I fall asleep reading anything.

  12. #12
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Its funny anyways. Today I had my shrink tell me that the Iraq war was an illegal war. So the next time I go in there I have a copy of the Iraq U.N. resolution to give to him. It was Oked by the U.N. but no one wanted to follow through with there own demands.

  13. #13
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    bro just tell your shrink that you dont pay them to talk politics. time is money.

  14. #14
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    yeah i read it. i just dont think its accurate at all. There is a WORLD of difference between what is going on now and the D-day invasion. nobody in america would criticize it. not even the presidents most malicious enemies.
    You have got to be kidding me!? Do you not see what has happened to our political parties? Liberals will always take the exact opposite side to anything a conservative says. It's a gut reaction. The difference you don't seem to see is that Republicans and Democrats of the 40s, 50s, and even 60s were not that far apart in ideologies when it came to national defense, war, etc. They mostly were divided along government size/spending and trade issues. They were even pretty close on social issues. Some how in the interveneing years, they have gone so far apart that there is not even a centrist contingent anymore. Zell Miller seems to be the only Conservative Democrat left, yet that used to be the Southern political majority. There seems to be a ton of Liberal Republicans, but where are the true Conservative Republicans? Being against abortion does not make you a conservative. Conservative by definition: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"; avoiding excess. Republicans are spending more, bloating the government, and legislating our lives, all of which are anathema to conservatives. As a matter of fact, a true conservative could be for or against abortion, but whould never introduce or vote to legislate its legality. That is the job of the Supreme Court.

    I've seen this before, and everytime I think its funny, then realize what a sad statement it is on the state of affairs right now because I see it as totally plausible, and evrytime I see it, it is even more plausible. The US and the world did not know the extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis when D-Day happened. As far as the world was concerned, they were fighting Hitler because he was invading Allied countries and breaking promises not to invade non-Allied countries (i.e.-Poland), not because he was exterminating jews. We were fighting the Japanese because they attacked us.

    So let's see. Who's invaded another country lately and violated International resolutions? Here's a hint: we went to war to stop them? Uhmm... Iraq? How many Democrats voted against going to war, then, when we actually did, continued to sow dissention about it? Sure, I can understand voting against going to war, but once it has been decided, to continue trying to undermine it not only forces divisions in the country, but hurts the soldiers that are fighting. How can a Nation be united behind its troops when it own leaders are squabbling because the majority voted against them?

    Now, let's see, who has attacked us lately? Oh yeah, Osama bin Laden and that little thing he did in New York. How much grumbling has there been about the war on terror by the Democrats? There were A LOT more casulties in the Pacific during WWII than there has been in the war on terror, yet you didn't hear any dissention in the Democratic ranks about pulling out of the Pacific like you do about Iraq and Afghanastan. There were just as many Dermocrats rallying the American society behind the cause as there were Republicans.

    In short, it sickens me when I here anyone say, "I support our troops, but not this war." You would NEVER EVER would have heard these words from even the most liberal politician during WWII. Yet it is the mantra of the modern day anti-war movements. You either support your Country or you do not. This half-assed semi-support only hurts because one view cannot support the other, it can only hurt the other. They are not mutually exclusive. You either support the troops and thus the expeditious execution of the war to limit the casualties as much as possible, or you do not and wish to drag it out by splintering public opinion, causing dissention in Congress so resolutions and bills require multiple votes and longer to find resolution causing the war to lengthen causing more of our soldiers to die. You can't do one without effecting the other. It's just not possible.

    Voice your dissent before the war starts, but when our boys and girls are in harms way, support them in any way possible. You'll have generations to express your dissent and displeasure with the war when our boys and girls aren't in harms way anymore.

    chance

  15. #15
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095
    I could not have said it better.. Honestly I could not have!


    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    You have got to be kidding me!? Do you not see what has happened to our political parties? Liberals will always take the exact opposite side to anything a conservative says. It's a gut reaction. The difference you don't seem to see is that Republicans and Democrats of the 40s, 50s, and even 60s were not that far apart in ideologies when it came to national defense, war, etc. They mostly were divided along government size/spending and trade issues. They were even pretty close on social issues. Some how in the interveneing years, they have gone so far apart that there is not even a centrist contingent anymore. Zell Miller seems to be the only Conservative Democrat left, yet that used to be the Southern political majority. There seems to be a ton of Liberal Republicans, but where are the true Conservative Republicans? Being against abortion does not make you a conservative. Conservative by definition: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"; avoiding excess. Republicans are spending more, bloating the government, and legislating our lives, all of which are anathema to conservatives. As a matter of fact, a true conservative could be for or against abortion, but whould never introduce or vote to legislate its legality. That is the job of the Supreme Court.

    I've seen this before, and everytime I think its funny, then realize what a sad statement it is on the state of affairs right now because I see it as totally plausible, and evrytime I see it, it is even more plausible. The US and the world did not know the extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis when D-Day happened. As far as the world was concerned, they were fighting Hitler because he was invading Allied countries and breaking promises not to invade non-Allied countries (i.e.-Poland), not because he was exterminating jews. We were fighting the Japanese because they attacked us.

    So let's see. Who's invaded another country lately and violated International resolutions? Here's a hint: we went to war to stop them? Uhmm... Iraq? How many Democrats voted against going to war, then, when we actually did, continued to sow dissention about it? Sure, I can understand voting against going to war, but once it has been decided, to continue trying to undermine it not only forces divisions in the country, but hurts the soldiers that are fighting. How can a Nation be united behind its troops when it own leaders are squabbling because the majority voted against them?

    Now, let's see, who has attacked us lately? Oh yeah, Osama bin Laden and that little thing he did in New York. How much grumbling has there been about the war on terror by the Democrats? There were A LOT more casulties in the Pacific during WWII than there has been in the war on terror, yet you didn't hear any dissention in the Democratic ranks about pulling out of the Pacific like you do about Iraq and Afghanastan. There were just as many Dermocrats rallying the American society behind the cause as there were Republicans.

    In short, it sickens me when I here anyone say, "I support our troops, but not this war." You would NEVER EVER would have heard these words from even the most liberal politician during WWII. Yet it is the mantra of the modern day anti-war movements. You either support your Country or you do not. This half-assed semi-support only hurts because one view cannot support the other, it can only hurt the other. They are not mutually exclusive. You either support the troops and thus the expeditious execution of the war to limit the casualties as much as possible, or you do not and wish to drag it out by splintering public opinion, causing dissention in Congress so resolutions and bills require multiple votes and longer to find resolution causing the war to lengthen causing more of our soldiers to die. You can't do one without effecting the other. It's just not possible.

    Voice your dissent before the war starts, but when our boys and girls are in harms way, support them in any way possible. You'll have generations to express your dissent and displeasure with the war when our boys and girls aren't in harms way anymore.

    chance

  16. #16
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    excellent post chances!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. #17
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    there is a reason you wouldnt hear it from the democrats in world war II. THEY WERE BEHIND IT. If you are even attempting to compare WWII with Iraq you are a fool. When Sadam invaded Quwait years ago I supported Bush sr. in stopping them. Who has iraq invaded lately? um nobody?

    The 'little thing' osama did?!? if you think 9/11 was a little thing then you are, well, a word which cannot be said on AR. So let me see, you think that its cool that osama killed thousands of americans and its ok to let him go, but Sadam, who has killed 0 americans, well, he is a bad man and we need to get rid of him i cant believe what you wrote it's insane and very ignorant.

    You know, I have family fighting in Iraq, and they are very much against the war. they are there because its their duty. So to say I support the troops but not the war is very plausible and has validity. Especially since I've heard it from actual soldiers. so that alone disproves your point.

    this is not about democrats and republicans. and anybody who would make it into such is nothing short of ignorant and an asshole. There are men dying, women dying, children dying. I am thinking of them not the next election. have a heart.

    You make my point so clearly when you say "we were fighting the japanese because they attacked us" Well last I checked, OSAMA BIN LADEN ATTACKED US NOT SADAM. So thank you for proving my point.

    We pulled out of the pacific because we dropped 2 bombs on Japan and ended the war -at least in the pacific- as the war in Europe had already ended.
    Last edited by symatech; 09-19-2004 at 03:27 PM.

  18. #18
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Ive been around a military enviroment since I was a kid. In the first Iraq war you didnt hear too many Men gripe or B!tch about having to do their job they signed up for. But this war is completely different. One thing is since our huge military was being attempted to be dismantled by a single president. Now all we have fighting over there is kids. 18y/o kids that signed up for reserve duty to get their collage paid for. No offense to these young men but they are not soldiers. They are kids still. I know quite a few of them myself. Clinton offered anyone that had 15+ years of experiance a early retirement. That was a big mistake!!!!

    As far as im concerned I could care less who wants to make the case for saddam or support his cause. We had our own reasons for being there and as far as I can tell most people cant grasp the concept of what we the United States are trying to acheive. Even if I listed every reason why saddam had to be taken out you guys wouldnt understand it. Im not gonna go as far as saying you are ignorant or a fool or stupid and everything else. The people that dont understand why we are at war will never understand why the tuff guys fight for what they believe in. There is two different kind of people when a threat shows up in their front yard. The one goes out and kicks the guys azz. While the other calls the police. To me both courses of action make since in their own way but I would have to be the first person.

  19. #19
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    I've grew up in a military family so you are really preaching to the choir. your saying our army is full of kids? what do you know. my uncle has been in the service for 15 years or more i cant recall and he is out there on the lines. This war is a proven calamity and the only ones in denial about that are those who would not listen to the truth. Dont even try and sterotype me you know nothing about me. I would have volunteered and even given my life to get osama because I believed in the cause. The iraq war I do not believe in. All pretenses for war with Iraq have proven to be false open your eyes.

    Furthermore, do not attempt to blame the current condidtion of the military on Clinton. Bush did far worse when he was in office. Check out this quote from his state of the union speech.

    "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office." -George Bush in state of the Union
    Last edited by symatech; 09-19-2004 at 05:26 PM.

  20. #20
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    The 'little thing' osama did?!? if you think 9/11 was a little thing then you are, well, a word which cannot be said on AR.
    Uhhmmm... that was sarcasm.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    So let me see, you think that its cool that osama killed thousands of americans and its ok to let him go, but Sadam, who has killed 0 americans, well, he is a bad man and we need to get rid of him
    So we're just letting Osama go? Then what are all those troops in Afghanastan doing? And Saddam killed 0 Americans!? You have to be ****ting me!? What about those that died in Desert Storm? What about trying to shoot down our planes in the no fly zone? I think you better re-evaluate your statements before calling anyone ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    there is a reason you wouldnt hear it from the democrats in world war II. THEY WERE BEHIND IT. If you are even attempting to compare WWII with Iraq you are a fool. When Sadam invaded Quwait years ago I supported Bush sr. in stopping them. Who has iraq invaded lately? um nobody?
    Not everyone Congress was behind WWII. Roosevelt wanted to join the war before Pearl Harbor was attacked, and Congress would not approve it. It took a direct attack on the US to force them to approve getting envolved in the war. The fact that you think no one was against WWII shows exactly my point. They were against the war, but we had troops going to war and it wasn't right to continue fighting against the war when we had troops committed and dying. Thanks for proving my point.

    I was drawing parallels with WWII because that is what the original post was illustrating. It is not ridiculous to compare the war on terror to WWII. It is a global war, but on a smaller scale in terms of troops. If you think the invasion of Iraq is not linked to the original invasion of Kuwait, you're listening to too much of the news spin. The invasion of Iraq was conducted and legal based on the provisions of Saddam's surrender. He refused to comply with that surrender, thus, any other reasons for invading Iraq are moot. People keep losing sight of that fact. He surrendered and promised to do certain things. He did not comply with those provisions and continued to attack the US. By the terms of his surrender, if he did not comply, he would be forced to militarily. All this WMD, and political maneuvering cannot change the facts. We should have done this years ago, but Clinton was content to just complain to the UN that Saddam wasn't complying and allow Saddam to continue to shoot at our planes. Bush wasn't.

    The two conflicts we are involved in now are very similar in reasoning to the two fronts we were fighting on in WWII, so the comparison is fair. The point was to show how the media has changed. Seems like they delight in portraying the military as a death machine. Sure, they say how many soldiers have died, but tell me they put as much emphasis on those deaths as they do on ANY other deaths in the conflict? How many stories do you see about the humanitarian missions that the troops are conducting? How many stories do we see enumerating the number of troops that have died because they didn't want to hurt or kill civilians? Do you even see it mentioned in the news? Troops are dying everyday because they are holding fire so as not to catch civilians in cross fire. How many stories do you see on the atrocities being committed against US troops? Bodies being mutilated, burned, dismembered? What we see reported in the news is how many civilians have died, and oh, by the way, 10 more Americans died.

    Symatech, you need to get passed the scale of WWII versus the war on terror/Iraq, and view it in the light that it was written. The media always portrays the American soldier as an evil murderer. This is exactly how the media would report D-Day if it happened TODAY. If you can't see it, nothing I say can help you.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    this is not about democrats and republicans. and anybody who would make it into such is nothing short of ignorant and an asshole. There are men dying, women dying, children dying. I am thinking of them not the next election. have a heart.
    How many Republicans do you hear complaining that the war is wrong, or accusing the administration is conducting an illegal war? This is all about Republicans versus Democrats. Democrats of today cannot back anything a Republican president does without trying to spin it so it looks good for them and bad for him. Also, you're telling me the sudden escalation of political rhetoric about the war has nothing to do with the fact that this is an election year? Give me a break. Democrats don't give any more of a **** about the people of Iraq then they do about the poor and oppressed in this country, unless they can use them to make the President look bad. They want to pull our troops out of Iraq and let whatever thug wants to take over have them. Hhhmmm... that sounds like caring to me

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    You make my point so clearly when you say "we were fighting the japanese because they attacked us" Well last I checked, OSAMA BIN LADEN ATTACKED US NOT SADAM. So thank you for proving my point.
    Again I ask, "What are all those troops in Afaghanastan doing?" I also reiterate, Saddam continued to attack us before the invasion by firing on our planes in the no fly zone. You need to check again.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    We pulled out of the pacific because we dropped 2 bombs on Japan and ended the war -at least in the pacific- as the war in Europe had already ended.
    Go back and check your history again. We pulled out of the Pacific when the Japanese surrendered. The war in Europe didn't end until after this took place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    Clinton offered anyone that had 15+ years of experiance a early retirement. That was a big mistake!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    Furthermore, do not attempt to blame the current condidtion of the military on Clinton. Bush did far worse when he was in office. Check out this quote from his state of the union speech.
    Having been in the Military during both the Bush and Clinton administrations I can say that Clinton had a much bigger effect on the military than Bush did. Clinton effected the moral of the military. He did offer early retirement, but not enough people took it so they started force retirement and troop reductions. I personally know 4 senior NCO who were force retired with 6 month or less until they were to hit 30 years. Since they didn't make 30 years, they got a smaller retirement than if they had been allowed to make it to 30. I also know a bunch of NCOs who were forced to leave, because they had been their current rank for "too long". They were some of the best NCOs we had and were just happy where they were. They didn't want to advance and become administrators. They wanted to stay in the mud with the rest of us. I know I was ready to stay in for the full 30 years before Clinton, but what I saw happening changed the atmosphere of the military and you began to see people making themselves look good at the expense of those they were serving with so they didn't get thrown out. You began to doubt if the guy next to you would really back you up, because he would screw you over in a second to make sure he didn't become part of the troop draw down. You tell me who did greater damage to the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    You know, I have family fighting in Iraq, and they are very much against the war. they are there because its their duty. So to say I support the troops but not the war is very plausible and has validity. Especially since I've heard it from actual soldiers. so that alone disproves your point.
    Let me put this simply:
    1. How do you support troops? Doing anything you can so that they have what they need to execute the war including material and moral support.
    2. How do you support a war? Do anything you can to make sure that the troops you have committed win the war. Including supplying material and support.
    3. How do you not support a war? Protesting and portraying the war as wrong. Fight to block any material and spending on the war.

    You cannot support the troops and not the war they are fighting in. They are counter to each other. By not supporting the war you are hurting the soldiers who are fighting it. You can disagree with the war, but while our troops are committed and dying, if you do not support the war you do not support them because they are the war. You're removing moral support from them. What was one of the greatest tragedies of the Vietnam war? The treatment of our troops who served there. That same **** is happening now. A soldier who had returned from Iraq due to wounds he received there was boo-ed and called a baby killer by spectators during a parade he was in in Washington state. You may be against the war, that's fine. My point is, before the war begins or when our troops are home, and out of harms way is the time to voice your opposition, not while they're being killed. You say there are troops that don't agree with the war but are fighting "because its their duty". I say it is our duty to support them by doing nothing that would effect their ability to conduct the war and return home.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    I would have volunteered and even given my life to get osama because I believed in the cause. The iraq war I do not believe in.
    Why didn't you join? I'm just wondering.

    chance
    Last edited by chances; 09-20-2004 at 10:55 AM.

  21. #21
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    I'm in a hurry so I'll just point out a quick few points and elaborate later. It is you who needs to check your history, VE (thats victory in europe) was achieved before VP (victory in pacfific). Here are the actual dates so I consider this part of the debate closed

    Go back and check your history again. We pulled out of the Pacific when the Japanese surrendered. The war in Europe didn't end until after this took place
    VE day - May 8, 1945
    VP day - August 15, 1945

    so as you can clearly see, we were fighting in the pacific for months after the german army surrendered and ended the war in Europe. So obviously we did end the war in the pacific by dropping the two bombs.

    Sadam Hussein Killed americans who invaded his country. You make it sound like he came over here and started killing us.

    In the military you are forced to retire after 20 years not 30 unless you make admiral or general or are given a special command. I know several Navy captains who had to retire after 20 years because they didnt make admiral but my uncle who commanded several boomers was allowed to stay for 22 or so.

    I support the troops because I have family over there, as i said before. I know for a fact that there are soldiers who do not want to be in Iraq becaue they dont believe in the cause. But that doesnt mean that they wont stand up for their brothers in arms. Do not try and question my patriotism or my support for the troops, I would like nothing more tha? to see them (and my family members) return home safely.

    Why didnt I join? Well, obviously because if I did I'd be in Iraq right now and killing for something I dont believe in. If 1000+ americans were dying in afghanistan I'd go for sure. But they aren't.


    All the troops in afghanistan? Last I checked there were very few. In fact, one report claimed there were more police in New York state than troops in afghanistan.
    Police officers in NYPD - 39,110
    (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/misc/pdfaq2.html#41)

    Troops in Afghanistan - ~20,000. originally only 10,000.
    (http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-2-2038.jsp)

    Square miles in ny - ~2000
    (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html)

    Square miles in afghanistan - 252,000
    (http://www.afghan-web.com/geography/genmap.html) (its rather interesting that the quote on the mainpage of this site claims "Afghanistan: the friendliest country in the world, possibly the universe"

    So as you can read above (or in the sources I provided) there are more police officers in New York city (which is SMALLER than afghanistan) than there are troops. So maybe you can tell why americans are dying in a country that has not attacked us and barely have a presence in a country that harbors a man that murdered thousands. "commom sense is an uncommon virtue"

    And by the way, its not like the democrats are evil people and are the only ones who disagree with everything the republicans say. The republicans do the same. My mother worked for the state gov. for 10 years and as a child I had to sit through countless legislative sessions. if anything -by my experience- the republicans are far more guilty of this than the democrats.



    all i have time for right now but Ill elaborate later
    Last edited by symatech; 09-20-2004 at 12:19 PM.

  22. #22
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    oh yeah, and perhaps Sadam was trying to shoot down american planes in the no fly zone because we have been bombing Iraq on a continual bases after the first desert storm ended. hmmmmm

  23. #23
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Cutting a few programs cant be compared to trying to kick out anyone that has been there for a while and has some experiance. I know that there is allways kids joining the military. But that is also who is running it now.


    I would fight but they wont give me a gun. They probally wouldnt even trust me in the kitchen with knifes.

  24. #24
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    VE day - May 8, 1945
    VP day - August 15, 1945
    My bad, had it backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    Sadam Hussein Killed americans who invaded his country. You make it sound like he came over here and started killing us.
    Saddam killed Americans who were booting him out of the country he invaded. I was talking about Gul War I.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    In the military you are forced to retire after 20 years not 30 unless you make admiral or general or are given a special command. I know several Navy captains who had to retire after 20 years because they didnt make admiral but my uncle who commanded several boomers was allowed to stay for 22 or so.
    Maybe in the Navy. The Army was different. That may have changed since I got out. You could retire at 20 years, and get a smaller pension or complete 25 or 30 years and get bigger pensions.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    I support the troops because I have family over there, as i said before. I know for a fact that there are soldiers who do not want to be in Iraq becaue they dont believe in the cause. But that doesnt mean that they wont stand up for their brothers in arms. Do not try and question my patriotism or my support for the troops, I would like nothing more tha? to see them (and my family members) return home safely.
    I don't question anyone's patriotism. I think you think in your heart, you're doing the right thing. All I am providing is my perspective as A COMBAT VETERAN. I have been there done that. I know what it's like to be in a foreign land fighting for the freedom of people I don't know. I also know what it is like to have your friend die in your arms then 2 hours later watch anti-war protests on CNN in a MASH unit. Don't you tell me what the **** I know or don't know! I've been there. You've only heard about it. You may think you're doing the right thing, but from my perspective you're just one more piece of the enemies offense. It's called PsyOps and you (the collective vocal anti-war people) are doing it for them. Everytime you open your mouth and let this anti-war bull**** spill out, there is some soldier or marine or sailor in the middle of a ****ing war that is going to read it or hear about or see you say it on the news and lose just that one little bit of morale, it's going to bring him or her that one little bit down and build more feelings of hopelessness because there is no support at home. How do you think you would feel to be on the otherside of the world fighting in a war where you don't really have time to contemplate the political aspect of what you are doing because you're just trying to stay alive and help the people you are there to protect, but everytime you see a news report, there are your Congressional leaders, and people at home calling what you are doing an illegal war? But we support a troops. Finally don't tell me what patriotism is boy. Until you've picked up a gun and walked a fenceline or worked on a ship or fought against an enemy bent on annihilating you, your words are hallow. Especially coming from someone that would have gone, but didn't because you couldn't pick your war. Look, I know you mean well, and you probably think you know a lot because you know people who are there, but until you've been there, you don't know ****. You might also want to check on a person's background before you get all high and mighty with them. I served 12 years in the US Army Special Forces. I KNOW what the **** I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    All the troops in afghanistan? Last I checked there were very few. In fact, one report claimed there were more police in New York state than troops in afghanistan. So maybe you can tell why americans are dying in a country that has not attacked us and barely have a presence in a country that harbors a man that murdered thousands. "commom sense is an uncommon virtue"
    So 20,000 troops are nothing huh? Nice thinking. Did you stop to consider the fact that they are fighting in an environment that is difficult for conventional US forces to adapt to? They're fighting at an extreme elevation and in a terraine that is not easily navigated by heavy weapons platforms like tanks and bradleys. Did you stop to realize that those 20K are made up of Green Berets, Navy Seals, Force Recon and Army Rangers? Do you not think that we are taking Afaghanistan seriously when we have the best of the best of the worlds most powerful military fighting there? There is no need for massive troop depolyments in Afghanastan anyway. The security issue and public upheaval is no where near as bad as Iraq. We need a lean force prowling the mountains looking for Osama. Unfortunately, there aren't that many units that are trained to fight in that sort of environment. So, comparing numbers without comparing context or actual duty is just stupid.

    And you still don't get it. Everytime Saddam sent a missle up at a jet in the no fly zone, he attacked the US. How can you not see that? You're acting like Saddam is some poor blameless foreign head of state that has never done anything to anyone, like say gas his own people with nerve agent, try to annihilate a race (the Kurds), or invade a soverign nation, that has been unjustly attacked by the aggressor US. As for your later assertion that he shot at us because we were bombing his country indisciminately is BS. The only time the US bombed Iraq after the cease fire was called before the surrender was signed was in response to missles shot at our jets, and that was only to take out the missle sites.

    I'm not even going to respond to that infantile attempt to put me down.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    And by the way, its not like the democrats are evil people and are the only ones who disagree with everything the republicans say. The republicans do the same.
    I never said Republicans didn't disagree. I said how many of them do you hear actively propaganizing against the war? How many of them are attending anti-war rallies? How many of them are having anti-war sentiments from their own mouths published in the newspaper or broadcast on the news? That's what I am talking about.

    One more thing, if the rolls were reversed, and a Democrat had gotten us into the situation we're in, I'm pretty sure you would see the same thing from the Republicans, except it wouldn';t be that the war was illegal or that we were duped, it would be that we are going about it the wrong way, or that the President was bumbling the war. And that would be just as wrong. Wait, seems like I'm hearing that too, from the Democrats. Hmmm... So, no, I do not believe the Republicans are any better than the Democrats.

    chance
    Last edited by chances; 09-20-2004 at 02:38 PM.

  25. #25
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    I was talking about Gulf war I as well.

    I respect the fact that you served and that you also think you are doing the right thing. As I am not a combat veteran we shall take your word for it. But I do know, that my part of my family, before they were deployed participated in an anti-war (iraqi war) march in DC, along with other soldiers despite the fact I think they are/were forbidden to do so. It was two of my cousins whom I grew up with (and who practically raised me). One of my cousing fights with the rangers and the other with the marine corp.

    As far as the spec forces in afghanistan, I cant say much for the seals etc I know they see combat (again i grew up around military and know several seals who have all gone to war before). But I do know a few green berets and their description of their duty in Nam and the gulf are not as combative as the seals or force recon. I have had long conversations (no i never went to nam) with them and both men are extremely intelligent, very soft spoken individuals. They told me about how they were the ones who would try to sway villagers/non combatants to bring in intel and report enemy movements. While they both did see action, it was not their primary objective. these are their words not mine Im just regurgitating it here.

    The reason you dont see republicans participating in anti-war rallies is because they are behind the president. If gore had won the election and was in office you would see republicans screaming for blood in the streets while the democrats labeled them as unpatriotic. Ive seen this first hand many times, although different situations.

    I agree with you that the situation in afghanistan is not as bad as Iraq, but face it, we made Iraq the trouble spot it is today. What good has capturing Sadam done for the american people? we are more hated now then ever before and we have motivated more terroists to attack us than dissuaded. dont say he was a murderer we already know that but Bush's policy to get him out was because of his imminent threat to the united states which has been proven that there was never one to begin with. However, you have osama bin laden who is still at large and has openly declared another major assault on the united states is near completion.

    Green berets and seals are all fine warriors. But just because they are highly trained killers doesnt make them any better at covering an enormous amount of terrain. You need more men to do that. no substitute.

    Out of curiosity which special forces branch did you serve under, you may know some people I know. We can keep that in PM if you wish. And there is nothing in your profile that says anything about your military service so dont jump on my back about that. I have nothing but respect for those who serve.

  26. #26
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    I see you added some in your last post that prettymuch corresponds with part of what I wrote. glad we can put the political bull**** past us then. i really dont like politics. especially when people are dying.

    by the way you have a pm
    Last edited by symatech; 09-20-2004 at 03:37 PM.

  27. #27
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    But I do know, that my part of my family, before they were deployed participated in an anti-war (iraqi war) march in DC, along with other soldiers despite the fact I think they are/were forbidden to do so.
    Was this before the war had started? What I mean is, were there soldiers already there dying?

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    As far as the spec forces in afghanistan,
    ...
    While they both did see action, it was not their primary objective.
    The primary responsibility of the Green Berets is to teach indigenous personnel to fight. So right now there are teams of green berets fighting and training and advising Northern Alliance troops. We may only have 20,000 troops there, but 2 green berets can build an army out of farmers.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    Bush's policy to get him out was because of his imminent threat to the united states which has been proven that there was never one to begin with.
    How can you concretely say that a mad man was no threat to us? That's not the point anyway. Pres. Bush began the trip to war by showing that according to Saddam's surrender, he was to comply or be forced to militarily. He was an enemy dictator who chose to ignore the provisions of his surrender. He's lucky we didn't just bomb the hell out of evey place we "thought" there were chemical weapons. The very fact that he kept booting inspectors out of the country was enough to go to war, and for any reasonable individual to assume that he had them, he just didn't want anyone to find them. Hell, that's gone back to before the Gulf War. He used nerve agent on this own people in the war with Iran. Are we to assume, because he says so, that he doesn't have more?

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    Green berets and seals are all fine warriors. But just because they are highly trained killers doesnt make them any better at covering an enormous amount of terrain. You need more men to do that. no substitute.
    That's why they have green berets and the seals there. The green berets are training the locals and gathering intelligence from them, and the Seals are leading them when they go out on missions, etc. We may only have 20,000, but there is a substantially larger force actually doing the searching.

    EDIT: The latest troop numbers in Afghanastan that I just saw were 80,000.

    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    Out of curiosity which special forces branch did you serve under, you may know some people I know. We can keep that in PM if you wish. And there is nothing in your profile that says anything about your military service so dont jump on my back about that. I have nothing but respect for those who serve.
    I was a green beret in the Army.

    You have a PM as well.

    chance
    Last edited by chances; 09-21-2004 at 12:51 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •