Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire D-Day & TOday -- contrast & comparison

On 6 June 1944,
� US bombers dropped their bombs on farms and towns far inland, not on the coastal fortifications.
� The Air Corps dropped the Airborne everywhere except the planned drop zones.
� Many of the paratroopers drowned in flooded fields where they weren't supposed to have been dropped.
� Most of the tanks from the Higgins boats sank in several fathoms of water, and the tankers drowned -- leaving the troops on the beach virtually devoid of armored back-up.
� A few Navy destroyers shelled the cliffs after the troops were dying in dozens, scores, and hundreds under that withering fire from the heights.
� General Bradley considered the beach invasion a disaster and wanted to pull the troops back -- but couldn't rescue 'em.
� With the tide rising and the beach narrowing, the Dogfaces had nowhere to go except up the cliffs -- smack into the muzzles of small arms and artillery.
� Rear-echelon brass had obviously missed a few crucial details, and casualties thinned the ranks of front-line brass.
� The Dogfaces saved themselves by pushing on -- up, over, and in.

We at home on that day and thereafter heard nothing of the kind of criticism and condemnation and defeatism that in some circles today is called "patriotism" by "the loyal opposition." ("Loyal opposition" -- there's a modern oxymoron if I ever heard one!)

In part because of the press, in part because of the national attitude, loyalty in that time focused our outrage, harsh criticism, and opposition on one foe -- the Axis.

In this day, it's "loyal opposition" to focus outrage, harsh criticism, and opposition on one foe -- the Administration.

What languages do you suppose we'd be speaking here today if the Normandy invasion and the Second Front had been the focus of the same kind of reporting, analysis, and commentary that the Iraq war is inspiring?

Has anything in Iraq been as calamitous for our forces as 6 June 1944 was? Has any of the planning for Iraq been as thoroughly demolished as the groundwork that was laid for Operation Overlord? How much longer will the conflict in Iraq have to go on before we'll have lost as many young men as we lost on that one beach, on that one day?

We won that invasion and went on to win that war.

Let's hope and pray that despite having so many of our foes right here among us today, we'll win this one, too.

Excellent post

Ken, one big difference is in WWII the media knew to keep their mouths shut for operational security so as not to risk our troop's lives. Now, it's a race to see who can spill the beans first.

Comparing the threat posed by Germany to the rest of the world to the threat posed by Iraq is ridiculous. Iraq never had the industrial base that Germany posesses and Iraq is not even close to being a superpower.

If the reasons for invading Iraq had been valid, the American public would be behind the war 100%.

dave in wv, i am all about free speech and everything that goes along with it, but i like you believe that the media gets away with giving away our troops locations and movements. that is the worst thing you can do in a war. why would our government allow that? i wonder how those reporters sleep at night.......blake

I spent thirty years in the military and I considered the media as my enemy while respecting and believing in the need for the freedom of the press. The media is a very powerful weapon.

I think that the events of 9-11 proves that they don't need to have an industrial base or be a world super power to be a threat to us and the civilized world. I don't usually speak harshly here, but if you can't see that you are a fool and an idiot.

I am just sick and tired of people critizing our leaders for attacking our enemies. We should have done so long before 9-11 and didn't because of political pressure.

They made their intentions known long before they flew our own planes up our asses... When a government supports those who want to kill us they are also our enemey. There is no way to negoiate with a terroists who's only goal is kill you. You have only two choices... kill or be killed.

It's because of wimppy, crying ass wusses that we didn't slove this problem a long time ago.

If you can't see that Irag is our enemey and has the potential and the will to kill inocent Americans then you have your head up your ass so far and for so long that no amount of reason is going to reach your ears. Nothing I say will change your views. But I for one am tired of hearing them. Take that song and dance else where it ain't gonna fly here.

Valad reasons indeed... THEY WANT TO KILL US YOU FOOL! What reasons do you need? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Rick -

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
-- Teddy Roosevelt

Yeah, diplomacy and tact were never my strong points.

PDS - that was not for you !!! WE agree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It was for Rick-g

Sorry bout the confusion

You don't say. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Nothing in my post said anything of the sort, IIRC. I spoke mainly of matters within our own borders, within our own disintegrating culture.

Not alone, on its own, no -- but with the active backing of Russia, France, Germany, and several Middle Eastern countries, YES, IT DID have the industrial and financial base to threaten us not with annihilation (granted) but unquestionably with serious national injury. In most states, justification for individual self-defense doesn't require the threat of imminent death. The perceived threat of imminent serious bodily harm is generally justification enough. Saddam Hussein certainly and without question posed this level of national threat.

Would you have preferred that we do nothing but talk, talk, talk until half of New York City or Washington DC lay in radioactive ash or under a cloud of Sarin?

The big difference between the 1940s war with Germany and today's war in Iraq is that the 1940s US President finally had no choice but to respond to a global war that was already in full rage, while the 2003 US President didn't wait for the terrorists to plunge us into the same scale of full global war. If FDR'd had the backing of the citizenry sooner, and had entered the war with Germany sooner, WW2 would've cost the world a lot less in years, money, suffering, and lives.

I wasn't confused, just confessing...

Exactly. And if our leaders had had any political backing aginst international terrorists before 9-11 we would not be here either.

We would have taken care of Sadam during the first Gulf war. We didn't because it was not "politically popular" to do that, and it came back and bit us in the ass.

Ken,I think the question of actively changing the mind-set of a part of the world has not been addressed,whether the correctness,likelyhood,or cost.That's why outspoken opposition.

Loyal Opposition? when did you guys get a king?

Here we go again with the same old crap about how this is a war on terror and if we didn't invade Iraq, we would have more terroristic acts like 9-11.

For the last time, the 9-11 terrorists were predominantly Saudis, 15 out of 19. There were no links with SH no matter how badly you all want to believe there were. If we were to invade any country to stop the terrorists, shouldn't it have been Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we just invade Canada? It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, and the logistics would have been much more manageable. It makes about as much sense as invading Iraq to stop OBL.

Where can I buy what you guys are smoking?

Once again Rick you are wrong. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported on the leader of the Fedeeyin (I have no idea how to spell that) leader was present at meetings in Maylasia when the 9/11 attacks were planned.



I know your next point - "IF thats true why isn't the Admin talking bout it?"



Its because the admin never said we went into Iraq cuz of an AQ /SH link. It was the lib left who have tried to tie that knot. The adminsaid Iraq was part of the world on terror. No one ever said AQ was the sole target of that war.

Rick, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />,the last few times that was tried, it didn't work out too good <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, but we wouldn't have known what to do with a bunch of crazy Canucks anyways. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

BTW What happened to the Flames? Thought that they might pull it off, but once TB figured out how to stop Iginla it was all over.

Calgary's defence wasn't up to TB's talent and work level.