« Home | You Have Got To Be Kidding Me » | Austin Update » | Blogging The Democratic Debate » | I Think He Forgot His Meds That Morning » | No Al Cierre » | The New Religion Of The Left » | Friday Flashback » | Too Long For A Comment » | How To Win Friends And Influence People » | And Now For Something Completely Different » 

Thursday, June 7 

Pure Genius


What would the battle of Normandy look like if it took place June 6, 2007 instead of 63 years earlier. Next time you're watching coverage of the current war, compare it to this.

Some stats about Normandy to consider on the 63rd anniversary. (I know it was yesterday, but I was traveling).
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This means over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths in the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st soldier Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the Axis troops during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated, about 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket by itself, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.


h/t Blackfive

Labels:

please tell me that you understand how world war II and the iraq boondoggle are completely unlike each other. The media's coverage of the war nonwithstanding, wwII was truly about stopping a madman and the iraqi occupation is about something else entirely.

The comparison's between what happened in the 40s to what is happening today is really borderline absurd.

It's not as much of a comparison of the war as it is a comparison of the coverage of the war. Every time a soldier is killed in Iraq some code pink moonbat calls for our troops to be pulled out, because it's obviously too dangerous for them. Whereas 63 years ago we lost tens of thousands of soldiers in just one small part of the war.

The comparison seems absurd now because we look back at Normandy through the eyes of history, which show that we were ultimately victorious. But for the soldiers standing on that beach, watching their buddies die all around them, I'm sure it wasn't quite so obvious that they were going to make it. Instead of a 30 second clip of an ied going off in Iraq, imagine nightly coverage of the kind of fighting that they were doing, where they had to crawl over every inch of ground while being pinned down by machine gun fire and the Luftwafe.

I discussed this very issue with my great uncle, a retired Lieutenant General who saw combat in North Africa and Italy, and that was his opinion as well. Yes, it's a different kind of war, but the coverage of every nuance of the war today, couple with it's blatant anti-military leanings, and it's no wonder people are tired of the war. They haven't heard the "V" word in 3 years, where civilians during WWII were told on a daily basis that the going was tough, but "our boys will be victorious over there."

My main point though is the comparisons to even the coverage are lacking in a basic understanding of social convention.

During WWII, people were a lot more patriotic (simple) and the media was actually controlled by the government to a certain extent... clearly no one back then would speak out against the war (although some newspapermen did, and they were labled communists).

Media outlets today do not form opinion frank... they mirror it. If a majority of the population was FOR the war, you would see more positive coverage (like when we first went into Afghanistan). Since some 70% of Americans are against the current state of conflict in Iraq, you have to agree that the media is only trying to convey the general sentiment. I don't know, but whenever you start calling people who oppose the war names (moonbats), I tend to wonder if that is the extent of your intellect (I know for a fact you are smarter than that).

Media outlets today do not form opinion frank... they mirror it.

Media outlets today mirror leftists opinion, but not the general opinions of the country. Most members of the media, when asked why they want to be journalists, say they want to change the world. That is what they attempt to do with their role. They don't go see news and report it, they go look for the news that mirrors their outlook on the world.

When we first went in to Iraq, there were journalists embedded with most every company and the press was overwhelmingly favorable. As soon as we got to the "Mission Accomplished" moment, the media did a quick 180 and the press has been nothing but negative since. Granted, there have been some really stupid things in this war, and they needed to be pointed out, but I would wager that the negative coverage of this war is easy 90% to 10% over favorable coverage. When was the last time you heard a Taliban or Al-Qaeda body count on the nightly news?

There are intelligent people who have genuine, principled concerns about this war, and I respect their opinions. However, when I see groups like ANSWER and Code Pink protesting, they never have anything intelligent to say about the war. Their entire protest iis centered around bumper sticker slogans like, "Bush Lied, Soldiers Died" or "No Blood For Oil". They embody the very essence of the barking moonbat. When the main face of their movement, Cindy Sheehan, openly embraces a dictator like Chavez, then they are not anti-war, they are anti-American. I have absolutely no problem at all with pointing at these groups and calling them every name I can think of. I have absolutely zero respect for them or their positions.

There are countless examples of the media playing stories that are counter to what mainstream America believes.. but if you play the same story enough times, eventually people start to believe it. Much like your latest post, I agree that most people have little inclination to investigate anything for themselves, so when they wee someone on television who is supposed to be a respectable journalist telling them that black is white, they start wondering if maybe black isn't really white. Eventually a large segment of the population is calling it white, all because they were too lazy to fact check what the media spoon feeds them. If that's not so, then why the hype on global warming and so little from anyone on the media about the countless climate scientists who say it is all bogus?

So yes, I agree, I am smarter than that. I just wish more of the general population were as well.

You bring up an interesting point... when GW stood on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf and proclaimed, "Mission accomplished!" Don't you wonder if the mission was accomplished, why we are still there? If we won and the "war" is over, why are we still fighting?

The whole iraq conflict has been a clusterfuck from day one... There is NO denying that it was a boneheaded move to start an unpopular war during a time when the country was mired in both an economic and social slump. The media is a business, they sell ideas and opinion, but they do not sell things people don't want...

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Copyright (c) 2007, Frankly Speaking.