Opinions wanted on WWII

[johnsmith]

I have a question for you guys, if at the beginning of WWII (as far as America is concerned) we had mass media at the same level of today, what do you think their opinions and general consensus on the war would have been? Remember, somewhere around 10,000 allied soldiers died on or around D-Day alone.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just like the media covered the first Gulf War. I suspect you have an agenda and are trying to make a point.... but I'll play along. Did the media report 10,000 died on that day? If they did report the deaths then I am not sure what would be different?

[johnsmith]

Just like the media covered the first Gulf War. I suspect you have an agenda and are trying to make a point.... but I'll play along. Did the media report 10,000 died on that day? If they did report the deaths then I am not sure what would be different?

Of course they didn't report that 10,000 died that day, the first war to have a "death count" was Vietnam, of course they were a little more extreme then we are nowadays, what with a ticker on the bottom of the screen and all. Really I don't have an agenda, I just had read an article talking about the "liberal media" of which I don't have much of an opinion on as I think the entire media is about as worthless as the government itself (GOP and Dems) and I thought it was an interesting point. Does the media create a national opinion regarding every conflict America goes into nowadays? Or is it a genuine opinion of the people?

[Extra Stout]

I have a question for you guys, if at the beginning of WWII (as far as America is concerned) we had mass media at the same level of today, what do you think their opinions and general consensus on the war would have been? Remember, somewhere around 10,000 allied soldiers died on or around D-Day alone.
I don't think it would have been different. Japan attacked the United States. Germany declared war on the United States. Trouble had been brewing with the Japanese for 30 years, and with the Germans for 8. Germany only 25 years earlier had conspired to return Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California to Mexico. These nations represented an existential threat to the United States.

The U.S. waited to go to war until it had no other choice. There had been hawks urging the U.S. to take care of these threats pre-emptively for a long time. There were doves urging avoidance of war at all costs. There were appeaseniks, even sympathizers with Hitler. The media climate would be shockingly familiar to you.

The Axis powers already had been attacking U.S. supply shipments to the Allies. Our interests had been under attack for two years and we still did not act.

Only after Pearl Harbor did the country snap to it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Of course they didn't report that 10,000 died that day, the first war to have a "death count" was Vietnam, of course they were a little more extreme then we are nowadays, what with a ticker on the bottom of the screen and all. Really I don't have an agenda, I just had read an article talking about the "liberal media" of which I don't have much of an opinion on as I think the entire media is about as worthless as the government itself (GOP and Dems) and I thought it was an interesting point. Does the media create a national opinion regarding every conflict America goes into nowadays? Or is it a genuine opinion of the people?



It's a catch 22.. The opinion of the people does matter and they should be informed of what is going on. I certainly don't think the public needs battlefield stragtegy but we have a right to know. Currently our govt would like to control what comes out of Iraq because they feel that the primary culprit in waning support is the media coverage. I think the waning support has more to do with the necessitiy of the war. People have Vietnam in the back of thier minds and I think we have wanted to avoid a vietnamesque mistake again. Iraq becomes more and more like Vietnam everyday .. our govt should worry less about the perception of thew war and be honest on what's going on.. Bush , Rummy and 5 deferrment Dick say things are better than they are being reported and then 300 more people die right after those comments... very hard to reconcile what our govt says and what is reported..

[RandomGuy]

I have a question for you guys, if at the beginning of WWII (as far as America is concerned) we had mass media at the same level of today, what do you think their opinions and general consensus on the war would have been? Remember, somewhere around 10,000 allied soldiers died on or around D-Day alone.
Little different.

Most of the people still remembed WW1, with the massive casualties involved.

They would have been/were happy that so few were being killed compared to how bad it could have been.

[sickdsm]

Sometimes not knowing the entire truth is a good thing...........


Like when your new bride gets banged around by the best man more than Chris Mihm on every single christmas day.

[johnsmith]

Little different.

Most of the people still remembed WW1, with the massive casualties involved.

They would have been/were happy that so few were being killed compared to how bad it could have been.

So few? Ok, I thought there were far fewer US casualties in WWI as opposed to WWII, allow me to google that, God I love the internet.
WWI Combat Casualties: 53,513
Other Casualties: 63,195
Wounded: 204,002
WWII Combat Casualties: 292,131
Other: 115,185
Wounded: 670,846

So wouldn't they have been apalled that nearly 10,000 allied troops died in at the very beginning of the war? Furthermore, by your logic, most people compare Iraq to Vietnam, myself included, so shouldn't we be happy that there are far fewer casualties in Iraq then were in Vietnam?

[RandomGuy]

So few? Ok, I thought there were far fewer US casualties in WWI as opposed to WWII, allow me to google that, God I love the internet.
WWI Combat Casualties: 53,513
Other Casualties: 63,195
Wounded: 204,002
WWII Combat Casualties: 292,131
Other: 115,185
Wounded: 670,846

So wouldn't they have been apalled that nearly 10,000 allied troops died in at the very beginning of the war? Furthermore, by your logic, most people compare Iraq to Vietnam, myself included, so shouldn't we be happy that there are far fewer casualties in Iraq then were in Vietnam?

I didn't say US casualties. I said casualties in general. What are the figures for TOTAL WW1 casualties on all sides?

[boutons_]

"we had mass media at the same level of today"

We also have a much more sophisticated, educated, sub/urban society that is even less "down on the farm" ingorant. The flow of information from all sources on all topics, including the conduct of governemnt, is effectively infinite. Modern societies have achieved what the US FF's said was important to a free and open democratic society: information. This situation is exactly why non-democratic societies control their media and Internet, so the power structure can keep the populace ignorant and exploitable.

Against this exorable increase in information flow, dickhead/Repugs have been re-classifying documents that were in the public domain for decades, and generally increasing the secrecy around government operations and policy decisions (eg, dickhead's secreet national energy plan concocted with and to serve the profit interests of the enery co's). Their big lie is that the secrecy is a national security requirement, when in fact it's to game the system more in favor of the Repug party and their corporate paymasters.

[johnsmith]

I didn't say US casualties. I said casualties in general. What are the figures for TOTAL WW1 casualties on all sides?

Damnit, now you are going to make me google again.

[RandomGuy]

Total military casualty figures:

9M+

Often hundreds of thousands in one day. Over the top and into machine gun fire.

Compared to that, even had they known the full extent, people were smart enough to realize the extent of what was going on.

You don't give people enough credit for common sense, then or now.

[RandomGuy]

Damnit, now you are going to make me google again.


Beat you to it. I wouldn't have said anything if I hadn't had some idea in the first place. :D

[johnsmith]

Total military casualty figures:

9M+

Often hundreds of thousands in one day. Over the top and into machine gun fire.

Compared to that, even had they known the full extent, people were smart enough to realize the extent of what was going on.

You don't give people enough credit for common sense, then or now.

Yeah but I have 24 million for WWII (military only). So, I'm still confused why people would be happy there were less being killed, plus there weren't less being killed.

[johnsmith]

Beat you to it. I wouldn't have said anything if I hadn't had some idea in the first place. :D

Clearly not fair, I had to do some actual work for a minute. No one can touch my googling skills damnit.

[101A]

Total military casualty figures:

9M+




...holy crap.

Now, extrapolate that out to todays population and military weapon capabilities; probably could rusult in 200 - 300 mil. dead in a WW.

There's the solution to global warming right there. Dead people don't use fossil fuels.

[johnsmith]

"we had mass media at the same level of today"

We also have a much more sophisticated, educated, sub/urban society that is even less "down on the farm" ingorant. The flow of information from all sources on all topics, including the conduct of governemnt, is effectively infinite. Modern societies have achieved what the US FF's said was important to a free and open democratic society: information. This situation is exactly why non-democratic societies control their media and Internet, so the power structure can keep the populace ignorant and exploitable.

Against this exorable increase in information flow, dickhead/Repugs have been re-classifying documents that were in the public domain for decades, and generally increasing the secrecy around government operations and policy decisions (eg, dickhead's secreet national energy plan concocted with and to serve the profit interests of the enery co's). Their big lie is that the secrecy is a national security requirement, when in fact it's to game the system more in favor of the Repug party and their corporate paymasters.

I'm curious, have you ever answered any of this stuff with an explanation other then, "It's the republicans fault"? Damn, I may have been giving randomguy a hard time yesterday, but that was just for fun, at least he backs up his statements with intelligent thoughts that don't just place blame but actually have merit to it and usually provide an idea for a solution, you are just angry.

[Extra Stout]

...holy crap.

Now, extrapolate that out to todays population and military weapon capabilities; probably could rusult in 200 - 300 mil. dead in a WW.

There's the solution to global warming right there. Dead people don't use fossil fuels.
Well, the loss of water supplies in China and India when the Himalayan glaciers have melted will significantly reduce global populations anyway.

[johnsmith]

Well, the loss of water supplies in China and India when the Himalayan glaciers have melted will significantly reduce global populations anyway.

I have a good feeling we will all blow eachother up before it gets to that, so don't worry about it.

[Extra Stout]

I have a good feeling we will all blow eachother up before it gets to that, so don't worry about it.
So, global annihilation by 2050?

I suppose I soon should get started on my "Welcome Lord Jesus" banner.

[johnsmith]

So, global annihilation by 2050?

I suppose I soon should get started on my "Welcome Lord Jesus" banner.

Unless those damn scientoligists are right, then it will have to be "Welcome Lord Xenu".

[sickdsm]

Little different.

Most of the people still remembed WW1, with the massive casualties involved.

They would have been/were happy that so few were being killed compared to how bad it could have been.



Just trying to get an idea of what you're getting at.


Are you saying that Americans thought in global terms of casulties and death?



We''ve never really cared what happaned to other countries interests before, whether there allies, enemies or bystanders, don't think for a minute that if 5,000 more hezballah, civilians, monks, or Taliban folks were dead but our U.S. troops, reporters and civilians total dropped to zero that there wouldn't be parades on every street and G-Dub would have a 86 percent approval rating or whatnot.


If there was a proposition on the ballot that gave us the option of 2 million people dieing in Europe and Asia to various causes in order for 9-11 to not have happaned, there is no chance that Americans wouldn't jump at it. Let alone with a 60 years ago mentality.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah but I have 24 million for WWII (military only). So, I'm still confused why people would be happy there were less being killed, plus there weren't less being killed.

Most WW2 military casuaties were either Chinese or Russian, neither group would have had much impact on american consciousness in any event.

Casualty rates for US forces in terms of men lost per combat day in WW2 were far less than WW1 in any case.

Another thing is that the sheer determination of the american people would not have been much in question. It was an "easy" fight in terms of knowing what needed to be done, with very clear outcomes.

Again, given the overall support for the war, and the relative moral clarity involved, and the only other comparison being ww1's sheer slaughter, I doubt people would have felt much diffrently.

[RandomGuy]

Just trying to get an idea of what you're getting at.
Are you saying that Americans thought in global terms of casulties and death?

We''ve never really cared what happaned to other countries interests before, whether there allies, enemies or bystanders, don't think for a minute that if 5,000 more hezballah, civilians, monks, or Taliban folks were dead but our U.S. troops, reporters and civilians total dropped to zero that there wouldn't be parades on every street and G-Dub would have a 86 percent approval rating or whatnot.


If there was a proposition on the ballot that gave us the option of 2 million people dieing in Europe and Asia to various causes in order for 9-11 to not have happaned, there is no chance that Americans wouldn't jump at it. Let alone with a 60 years ago mentality.

I am saying that the American experience in war was pretty much from ww1 with a lot of senseless slaughter for little gain.

Weighed against that experience, most Americans would have had the sense to realize that even given the initial casualties, the gains were important enough to merit the cost.

[johnsmith]

Most WW2 military casuaties were either Chinese or Russian, neither group would have had much impact on american consciousness in any event.

Casualty rates for US forces in terms of men lost per combat day in WW2 were far less than WW1 in any case.

Another thing is that the sheer determination of the american people would not have been much in question. It was an "easy" fight in terms of knowing what needed to be done, with very clear outcomes.

Again, given the overall support for the war, and the relative moral clarity involved, and the only other comparison being ww1's sheer slaughter, I doubt people would have felt much diffrently.


Wait a second though, we're getting off the point. I want to know what you'd think the media coverage would be and how that would affect the peoples opinion. Personally, I think the media would have went nuts with 10,000 dead in a weekend's time and suddenly America would have said, let's worry about the Japanese that attacked us and let the Euro's stand for themselves, in my opinion.

[johnsmith]

Also, ALL HAIL XENU!

[RandomGuy]

If there was a proposition on the ballot that gave us the option of 2 million people dieing in Europe and Asia to various causes in order for 9-11 to not have happaned, there is no chance that Americans wouldn't jump at it. Let alone with a 60 years ago mentality.

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.

[johnsmith]

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.

Yeah, but I don't think the hypothetical ballot would be left in the hands of the American people, thank you Washington DC.
Just think of the re-elections if such a bill was passed, "I helped save the lives of 3,000 some odd Americans", they would use that like crazy. So therefore, I agree with the one guys post, it would be jumped at in a heartbeat.

ALL HAIL XENU!

[sickdsm]

Most WW2 military casuaties were either Chinese or Russian, neither group would have had much impact on american consciousness in any event.

Casualty rates for US forces in terms of men lost per combat day in WW2 were far less than WW1 in any case.

Another thing is that the sheer determination of the american people would not have been much in question. It was an "easy" fight in terms of knowing what needed to be done, with very clear outcomes.

Again, given the overall support for the war, and the relative moral clarity involved, and the only other comparison being ww1's sheer slaughter, I doubt people would have felt much diffrently.


If we were so worried about moral clarity we would have taken more preventive measures to stop or slow down Hitler, not wait until we were punked by the Japs.


We would have done the "peal harboring" on Germany if it was about moral clairity and not U.S. interests.

Had we waited another year or two i feel that american soil would have been some sort of battleground.

[sickdsm]

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.



Really? What say you then? 1.75? 2 mill tops?



Try explaining that stance to the widow's.

[sickdsm]

I disagree. You don't give the American people enough of a sense of decency.

We may turn something of a blind eye to much suffering, but I would not think such a hypothetical ballot initiave would have a chance of passing.




Ahhhhh, decency.


Deceny would be if no one in the world found out that you did this. If it was like going back in time. There would be no added hatred of the U.S. simply because there would be no knowledge. It would be the biggest lanslide vote in the history of history.


That's the only thing stopping anyone from checking that box.

[RandomGuy]

If we were so worried about moral clarity we would have taken more preventive measures to stop or slow down Hitler, not wait until we were punked by the Japs.

We would have done the "peal harboring" on Germany if it was about moral clairity and not U.S. interests.

Had we waited another year or two i feel that american soil would have been some sort of battleground.

I didn't say we were worried about moral clarity.

I said that the moral situation in ww2 was much more clear than it is now with the "war" on terror.

[Marklar MM]

WW2 was a justified war. Hitler was not going to stop when he toppled Europe then Russia. Would you rather fight them on their soil, or have the Japanese attack from the West, and Germany the East. Possibly Mexico from the South.

[johnsmith]

WW2 was a justified war. Hitler was not going to stop when he toppled Europe then Russia. Would you rather fight them on their soil, or have the Japanese attack from the West, and Germany the East. Possibly Mexico from the South.

What's your point numbnuts? So how would the media have spun the casualties? Read from the beginning of the posts ya lazy jerk.

[Marklar MM]

What's your point numbnuts? So how would the media have spun the casualties? Read from the beginning of the posts ya lazy jerk.

I did that. I am just saying that everyone knew this was a war needed to be fought, not something such as Vietnam or Iraq that is pointless, unecessary, unjustified or any other word you can throw in there, with the media putting body counts out there to show that.

I am horrible with wording, but you can probably get the fiber out of what I am saying.

[Extra Stout]

American tolerance of casualties is directly tied to the existentiality of the threat. It was understood in the national consciousness that the Axis powers had to be defeated in order for free nations to survive, that if Europe fell and Germany controlled the Atlantic, that the East Coast would fall under attack.

The U.S. had to win at all costs to survive.

The difference today is that people do not believe that the war in Iraq has to be won at all costs in order to survive, so the tolerance of casualties is low.

There is also the question of progress. In the Pacific War, there was a turning of the tide. There was a successful North African campaign. We knew what we had to accomplish, and we knew what it would take to get there. It was communicated that an invasion of Europe would be difficult and bloody.

In Iraq, we know that we want to establish a stable democratic moderate state, but we don't have any idea how to get there, and we're not making any progress. Our leaders told us the war would be quickly over.

In WWII, we had competent national leadership that inspired confidence and allegiance.

In Iraq, we have George W. Bush, the result of an experiment mixing the genes of Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding.

[johnsmith]

American tolerance of casualties is directly tied to the existentiality of the threat. It was understood in the national consciousness that the Axis powers had to be defeated in order for free nations to survive, that if Europe fell and Germany controlled the Atlantic, that the East Coast would fall under attack.

The U.S. had to win at all costs to survive.

The difference today is that people do not believe that the war in Iraq has to be won at all costs in order to survive, so the tolerance of casualties is low.

There is also the question of progress. In the Pacific War, there was a turning of the tide. There was a successful North African campaign. We knew what we had to accomplish, and we knew what it would take to get there. It was communicated that an invasion of Europe would be difficult and bloody.

In Iraq, we know that we want to establish a stable democratic moderate state, but we don't have any idea how to get there, and we're not making any progress. Our leaders told us the war would be quickly over.

In WWII, we had competent national leadership that inspired confidence and allegiance.

In Iraq, we have George W. Bush, the result of an experiment mixing the genes of Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding.

But do you think the media would have spun it that way?

[Extra Stout]

But do you think the media would have spun it that way?
Yes, I do, because of how the media acted from 1933 to 1941. "Hitler's not so bad," "it's Europe's problem," "the Jews really are that bad," "don't get involved," "Churchill is a wingnut," "Stalin is worse anyway," "the Japanese are reasonable," "the Chinese are none of our business," etc, etc, etc.

Once there came a point there was no turning back, there was consensus.

The media treated Korea much the way they have Iraq. It was the same journalists mostly -- less than a decade following V-J Day. But Korea was not viewed the same way as WWII because Americans did not perceive an immediate threat.

[johnsmith]

Yes, I do, because of how the media acted from 1933 to 1941. "Hitler's not so bad," "it's Europe's problem," "the Jews really are that bad," "don't get involved," "Churchill is a wingnut," "Stalin is worse anyway," "the Japanese are reasonable," "the Chinese are none of our business," etc, etc, etc.

Once there came a point there was no turning back, there was consensus.

The media treated Korea much the way they have Iraq. It was the same journalists mostly -- less than a decade following V-J Day. But Korea was not viewed the same way as WWII because Americans did not perceive an immediate threat.

Honestly, I totally agree with you, but my original post was about if we had the same type of media back then that we do now.

[DarkReign]

Unless those damn scientoligists are right, then it will have to be "Welcome Lord Xenu".

:lmao

[sickdsm]

I didn't say we were worried about moral clarity.

I said that the moral situation in ww2 was much more clear than it is now with the "war" on terror.



Huh? You were directly comparing WWI with WWII.



The topic may have started on media comparisions but in no shape, way, or form were you comparing today to II on that post.





You don't have to lie to kick it.

[Extra Stout]

Honestly, I totally agree with you, but my original post was about if we had the same type of media back then that we do now.
You can go back to the 1780's even, and if anything, the media was more vitriolic than it is now.

You should read some of the things editorial writers would say about George Washington. :lol

[johnsmith]

You can go back to the 1780's even, and if anything, the media was more vitriolic than it is now.

You should read some of the things editorial writers would say about George Washington. :lol

Actually, that would be pretty interesting, I can't say I've ever read any of that. Well, I guess I could say it, but I'd be lying then.

ALL HAIL XENU

[RandomGuy]

Actually, that would be pretty interesting, I can't say I've ever read any of that. Well, I guess I could say it, but I'd be lying then.

ALL HAIL XENU

There is a really good series on the History channel on the revolution.

Interesting stuff.

[Marklar MM]

The History channel kicks ass.

[RandomGuy]

Huh? You were directly comparing WWI with WWII.

The topic may have started on media comparisions but in no shape, way, or form were you comparing today to II on that post.

You don't have to lie to kick it.

I mean this kindly:

You are missing the point. Go back and re-read what I have written, because you don't seem to be comprehending it.

I will try to help clarify here:

The question at hand is present day media and its affect on perceptions as compared to ww2, and what effect present day media would have had if it had existed in its current form during ww2.

I say that the analogy doesn't work well because the people and issues involved aren't the same.

The people that remember ww1 were a heck of a lot different thant the people who remember vietnam.

To say that if they had the same access to information they would have thought differently about d-day holds is not a logically substantiated premise.

[sickdsm]

I don't think you have any basis talking about US citizen's moral situation/clarity/etc.. when you don't acknowledge the moral tradeoff when it corresponds to US involement.


And then we have liberal yahoo's poking fun at the decling morals of this country the repubs bring up and wonder what moral value's are.


We won't throw our mother under the bus to get what's ours but we will RUSH to throw our foreign brother's non american mother under the bus to take what's theirs.


Is that wrong? Its only wrong if you can't admit it. Its like when you were 16 and one of your friends asked if you've ever jacked off. We all've done it yet it takes a while for us to admit that.


You want a comparison? How about that? We don't give a fuck about the war on terror, the drug war, rogue nations until it effects us. We do commando missions to get one female soldier out of enemy hands yet we witness people dieing due to starvation the world over.


You don't think the media would sway things? Go re-read 1984. Go watch the hezballah video
http://www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

Anythings possible and in case you weren't aware of it, shock and outrage sell in news coverage. Go see how many compasinate stories are the top stories of the day. We don't care about the candy us troops give out. we care about the one fucking soldeir that takes candy from a kid.



You still were comparing one and two on that post when you mentioned moral's.

Moral's and the consequences of what might have happaned in WWII are two COMPLETELY different things.

[boutons_]

VN and Iraq were wars of choice.

WWI and WWII were wars of necessity to keep Europe (a very important market for the USA, never forget that. $$$ make the world go around ) from being dominated by Germany. Apart from the $$$, immigrant America also had huge cultural and family ties to Europe going back only 1 or 2 generations. Those two wars were clear and present dangers from German state in formal wars and invasions.

VN and Iraq were totally different. Neither were clear and immediate dangers to the USA or any of its allies, neither had declared war or even attacked US interests.

I think if Germany, yet again the most wealthy, most industrially powerful, most populous country in Europe, were to start invading, the Americans, even with their abundance of news/opinion/information sources, would go fight Germany again now.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think you have any basis talking about US citizen's moral situation/clarity/etc.. when you don't acknowledge the moral tradeoff when it corresponds to US involement.

And then we have liberal yahoo's poking fun at the decling morals of this country the repubs bring up and wonder what moral value's are.

We won't throw our mother under the bus to get what's ours but we will RUSH to throw our foreign brother's non american mother under the bus to take what's theirs.

Is that wrong? Its only wrong if you can't admit it. Its like when you were 16 and one of your friends asked if you've ever jacked off. We all've done it yet it takes a while for us to admit that.

You want a comparison? How about that? We don't give a fuck about the war on terror, the drug war, rogue nations until it effects us. We do commando missions to get one female soldier out of enemy hands yet we witness people dieing due to starvation the world over.

You don't think the media would sway things? Go re-read 1984. Go watch the hezballah video
http://www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

Anythings possible and in case you weren't aware of it, shock and outrage sell in news coverage. Go see how many compasinate stories are the top stories of the day. We don't care about the candy us troops give out. we care about the one fucking soldeir that takes candy from a kid.

You still were comparing one and two on that post when you mentioned moral's.

Moral's and the consequences of what might have happaned in WWII are two COMPLETELY different things.

:bang

(breathes deeply)

1) Half of what you write is too hastily formed and very unclear. It is genuinely hard for me to understand some of your points.

2) I never mentioned morals. I mentioned moral clarity. That you don't seem to understand the difference leads me to conclude you don't seem to understand half of what *I* am saying.

Please take a bit more time to read, comprehend and compose.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think the media would have swayed things in ww2.

[RandomGuy]

I *do* think that Americans are more decent than you seem to think.

I *do* think we let our government do bad things in our name, because we can be ignorant and apathetic.

[johnsmith]

I *do* think that Americans are more decent than you seem to think.

I *do* think we let our government do bad things in our name, because we can be ignorant and apathetic.


I absolutely agree that Americans are extremely decent, hell, I think most everyone on the planet is decent. However, I also believe we'd wipe out an entire country if there was even a chance they were going to 9/11 us again and frankly, I don't think a lot of us would lose a whole lot of sleep over it either. Kinda sad really.

[sickdsm]

:bang

(breathes deeply)

1) Half of what you write is too hastily formed and very unclear. It is genuinely hard for me to understand some of your points.

2) I never mentioned morals. I mentioned moral clarity. That you don't seem to understand the difference leads me to conclude you don't seem to understand half of what *I* am saying.

Please take a bit more time to read, comprehend and compose.


Moral clarity is just a buzzword that attaches the idea's doing the right thing, strong morals into a policitacl, national sense. Quit acting like its some novel, newfangled, totallly unrelated aspect.


I agree deeply with your first point. My mind works faster than my hands alot of times and unless it really means something, my idea's and message are more important than my delivery. The point is always there though, the only editing i do is usually things that i retype twice because i don't remember if i already caught up to what i was thinking.


I will NOT take more time to compose though. You know what i'm getting at when i post, just like ducks does.

[RandomGuy]

I absolutely agree that Americans are extremely decent, hell, I think most everyone on the planet is decent. However, I also believe we'd wipe out an entire country if there was even a chance they were going to 9/11 us again and frankly, I don't think a lot of us would lose a whole lot of sleep over it either. Kinda sad really.

The suck thing about 9-11 is that the terrorists actually LOST support from it.

Sure they could claim they won some victory, and it might have gained them some support from people who 99% believed as they did anyway, but it horrified everybody else.

If a nation actually sponsored something like 9-11, you bet I would support wiping that nation off the map. Therein lies the problem. Nations don't do that sort of thing anymore.

Military power is necessary but not sufficient to win the war on terror.

[RandomGuy]

I will NOT take more time to compose though. You know what i'm getting at when i post, just like ducks does.

I'll suck it up. For the most part you are right about this, but it takes me re-reading our posts a couple of times to get it sometimes.


Moral clarity is just a buzzword that attaches the idea's doing the right thing, strong morals into a policitacl, national sense. Quit acting like its some novel, newfangled, totallly unrelated aspect.

Moral clarity isn't a buzzword.

Somethings are morally clear.

I should not kill the guy next to me just so I can use his coffeecup.

That we should do something to combat the jackasses that caused 9-11 and would do it again is just as clear.

Somethings aren't.

Do we give up on our principles and detain people for decades without trials?

In this sense you are right: most at Gitmo aren't americans, and so a good chunk of america doesn't give a rat's ass, i.e. generally conservatives.

But a good chunk of American citizens DO care that we shouldn't give up our core values to "win" the "war" on terror and imprison, torture, and do "whatever it takes".

[Extra Stout]

The suck thing about 9-11 is that the terrorists actually LOST support from it.

Sure they could claim they won some victory, and it might have gained them some support from people who 99% believed as they did anyway, but it horrified everybody else.

If a nation actually sponsored something like 9-11, you bet I would support wiping that nation off the map. Therein lies the problem. Nations don't do that sort of thing anymore.

Military power is necessary but not sufficient to win the war on terror.
They lost support? Really?

Then why were Palestinians dancing in the streets?

Why were Osama T-shirts and hats flying out of the bazaars?

Why were lots of Muslim children named Osama starting after September 11?

I think you may misapprehend the value attached to human life outside Western cultures.

[sickdsm]

I
But a good chunk of American citizens DO care that we shouldn't give up our core values to "win" the "war" on terror and imprison, torture, and do "whatever it takes".



Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?

[johnsmith]

Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?

Oh my God..........that was good stuff.

[johnsmith]

Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?

Seriously, I can't stop laughing at this one. I've never used one of those little smilies, but this clearly calls for a few. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[RandomGuy]

They lost support? Really?

Then why were Palestinians dancing in the streets?

Why were Osama T-shirts and hats flying out of the bazaars?

Why were lots of Muslim children named Osama starting after September 11?

I think you may misapprehend the value attached to human life outside Western cultures.

Really. I mean it.

The vast majority of muslims were appalled. Those pictures of palestinians "dancing in the streets" was stock footage taken out of context. Look that one up.

The extremely small minority that celebrated were only the people who believed much as he (or at least his miltant mentors) believed.

Have you actually talked to or read about real muslim reaction after 9-11, from any non-american press? Please do some reading and talking to people.

[RandomGuy]

Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?

Again, no.

You underestimate the power of people to affect things for the better, and the number of people who care.

[RandomGuy]

Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?


Seriously, I can't stop laughing at this one. I've never used one of those little smilies, but this clearly calls for a few. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

(puzzled)

Why is this funny?

[johnsmith]

(puzzled)

Why is this funny?


Here's the way I saw it, but first let me say that I'm not liberal or conservative, in fact, I dislike both sides. Anyway, the way I saw it was that the left are the ones that say they are the compassionate ones who can make a difference but they keep losing elections by 1-2% of the vote. Man, when you explain it, it kind of loses some of it's punch.

[sickdsm]

(puzzled)

Why is this funny?


Regardless if it really was funny or not i was starting to feel like i was funny.


not now......
:depressed

[johnsmith]

Regardless if it really was funny or not i was starting to feel like i was funny.


not now......
:depressed


Boutons is going to hate you forever for that joke..........classic.

[RandomGuy]

Regardless if it really was funny or not i was starting to feel like i was funny.

not now......
:depressed

Ah, don' sweat it. I still think you're funny















...lookin. j/k.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, FDR wouldn't be President because of the heavy coverage of his handicap.

Ike wouldn't be Supreme Commander of allied forces beacuse news of his extramarital affair would force him out of the Army.

Etc.

[101A]

Well, FDR wouldn't be President because of the heavy coverage of his handicap.

Ike wouldn't be Supreme Commander of allied forces beacuse news of his extramarital affair would force him out of the Army.

Etc.


...probably true, actually.

[leemajors]

You can go back to the 1780's even, and if anything, the media was more vitriolic than it is now.

You should read some of the things editorial writers would say about George Washington. :lol


yellow rags!

[Nbadan]

It is commonly said that FDR's polio wasn't popularly known at the time of his election. Of course, those around him knew. Moreover, they talked about its possible effect on his Presidency.

Henry L. Stoddard, editor of a New York newspaper, had the following conversation with Calvin Coolidge during FDR's first run for the White House in 1932


"If [FDR is elected]," said Mr. Coolidge, "we will be taking in America the biggest gamble in government that any people ever took."'

"You refer to Roosevelt's disability?" I asked.

"Yes -- that is part of the gamble," he replied. "Roosevelt has shown a great fighting spirit. I admire him for it, but he must have even greater courage to undertake what is ahead of any man the next four years. He will need greater strength, too. I know the burdens of the Presidency even [sic] in good times; in this situation they will be tremendous. There is almost an even chance that neither he nor any man in stronger health can stand the strain -- and that chance is a good deal for a nation deliberately to face with all our other uncertainties.

[sickdsm]

That has what to do with a large percantage of the population being unaware?


Pi equals 3.14 is about as relevant as that.