D-DAY June 6,1944

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

cropduster82 wrote:

I wonder the same thing. Would high school/college age kids voluntarily give up their freedoms, cell phones, laptops and all their other possessions to go and fight in a world war? I definately think a good portion would, although not in the staggering numbers in WWII. Sometimes I also think that there is a lot of entitlement in today's youth and many believe that someone else should go to war instead of them. Many want the world to be a more peaceful place, but they are not going to risk their lives in uniform for it to happen.

I wonder about the same thing too. Not only about the people who served, but the people who made so many sacrifices at home. I mean you hear all the time about people having to deal with things like food and fuel rationing, curfews and not using any light at night. I get the feeling today if government tried to implement any of those things today, even during a war, you would get people freaking out about how dare the government do this to them.

I know, that would never happen today with Americans, they couldn't go with out like that generation did. My great grandparents migrated to Ct during the 20s, my great grandmother worked for Timex in Waterbury CT during the war, meanwhile my great grandfathers brothers where fighting for the Italians back in Europe. But if you asked them about how they felt about it, they would have told you that they loved America, and would do anything they could to stay here. They left some pretty hard times in Italy and made the most of it here in the states, gave up a lot and did what they could to provide for their family. These qualities they and their generation had are lost in todays America in my opinion. I hope we can return to that someday, thats why I look at that generation for insperation. Not only for saving the world, but because they gave when they had nothing to give. They grew up with out nothing and still gave when asked when they had every right to be selfish.

Its just to bad that the baby boomer generation and onward shit on their accomplishments and squander what they gave us. Imagin how different things would be if we kept their morals and dedication to family and community and used our reasourses to better America and the world?

I think that's bullshit. America hasn't been tested since WWII. Every conflict we've had since then has been by choice, not necessity. That is why you don't/won't see kids racing out en masse to sign up for the military. They've never been asked to fight for a cause that merited it. Every generation is convinced that the one that came after it is worthless compared to the "gods" that were their forefathers.

The Baby Boomers were the biggest bunch of hypocritical failures ever to grace this country. They took a great nation that stood as a symbol of hope in this world and trashed its reputation through failure after failure... the Cold War, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. They took a nation that learned it could not trust private wealth to regulate itself (the Great Depression) and instead invented the self-serving doctrine of Reaganomics, with its disastrous deregulation and increasing wealth disparities.

I admire and respect those who lost their lives in WWII. It was a fight worth fighting. But don't tell me they were uniformly a greater generation than any other to walk the earth. Their nobility all too quickly became arrogance, and the sacrifices they made were all too quickly exploited for lesser aims.

Byrnzie wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I don't think Byrnzie hates America-- I think he hates the people who run America, who get us involved in numerous conflicts, which inspires hate for us abroad, and blind nationalism here.

America, at its core, as it was intended to be is about the most kick-ass place ever. How far have we been drawn away from that America though?

Finally, somebody posts something sensible. Thanks Vinny. I was beginning to lose any hope for this place.

Yet in the other thread, you fault the US for not getting involved in enough conflict (Bosnia and Chechnya). Which is it?

soulsinging wrote:

Yet in the other thread, you fault the US for not getting involved in enough conflict (Bosnia and Chechnya). Which is it?

You didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq to save the people of these countries from being massacred. A case in point is the U.S abandonment of the Sunni uprising at the end of the first Gulf war. You abandoned them to be massacred and buried in mass graves. You instructed Sadaam to 'restore order in Iraq' during this uprising. So much for caring about the people of Iraq and wanting Sadaam toppled and replaced by other Iraqi's independent of American control.

You invaded in order to steal their natural resources and boost the arms industry and the bank balances of U.S companies such as Halliburton e.t.c.

There's a difference...can you see it?

tybird wrote:

the Soviets' job was to trade land for time (Scorched Earth policy)....the tried and true Russian battle tactic going back to Peter the Great's war with Sweden and the Napoleonic wars....hold onto Baku and its oilfields...

Trade land for time you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
'...Stalin's orders to his troops not to retreat or surrender resulted in a return to static linear positions which German tanks easily breached, again quickly cutting supply lines and surrounding whole Soviet armies. Only later did Stalin allow his troops to retreat to the rear wherever possible and regroup, to mount a defence in depth or to counterattack. More than 2.4 million Soviet troops had been taken prisoner by December, 1941, by which time German and Soviet forces were fighting almost in the suburbs of Moscow. Most of these captured Soviet troops were to die from exposure, starvation, disease, or willful mistreatment by the German regime...'

tybird wrote:

You know nothing about history or the real world

Ermm, o.k.

prfctlefts wrote:

the Sunnis and the Kurds did this on their own accord

'...On February 15, 1991, in a carefully crafted and well-publicized statement, then-President George HW Bush appealed to “the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands-to force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside.” To underscore the point, Bush repeated it verbatim in another speech that day. In early March 1991, a massive Shi’ite rebellion swept across southern Iraq from Basra to the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. Ba’athists were tortured and executed in massive numbers throughout the south; pictures and portraits of Saddam were smashed to pieces. By mid-March, the Iraqi government lost control of 14 of the country’s 18 provinces.”

As the rebellion spread, representatives of the most prominent Shi’ite cleric in Iraq attempted to contact American forces that were then occupying parts of Iraq to assess Washington’s support. The US Commander in the region, General Norman Schwarzkopf refused to meet with them. American and other allied forces, meanwhile, destroyed and confiscated Iraqi munitions that could have been used by the rebellion. But the deathblow to the uprising came when the US lifted the over-flight ban on Iraqi aircraft, allowing the Iraqi government to send in attack helicopters to mercilessly crush the rebellion in late March. On top of this, the elite Republican Guard units that General Schwarzkopf had allowed to retreat to Baghdad at the end of the war led the counteroffensive on the ground against the rebellion.'

prfctlefts wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

You invaded in order to steal their natural resources and boost the arms industry and the bank balances of U.S companies such as Halliburton e.t.c.

prfctlefts wrote:

Yeah right :roll: If that were true we wouldn't still be paying so much for oil. We invaded becuase the Intel we received said that he had wmd's and he also violated 17 cease fire agreements and not to mention it was post 911

So you believed the story about wmd's at the time? Then why did the U.S government prevent the weapons inspectors from finishing their job?
And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

prfctlefts wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Then why did the U.S government prevent the weapons inspectors from finishing their job?

Saddam wouldn't let the weapons inspectors in because he wanted Iran to think he had wmd's,he was more worried about them than us.

What makes you think this? Do you have anything to support this belief? It's the first I've ever heard of it.

prfctlefts wrote:

One of his top generals said this on 60 minutes a few years ago.

It's an interesting thought, but I don't know if there's anything to suggest the Iranians had their eyes on Iraq. Either way, I can't believe that anyone seriously believed Iraq posed a threat to anyone. I'm sure the Iranians knew as well as everyone else that Iraq had no wmd's. After the first Gulf war, and then ten years of sanctions and daily bombing raids I think it's safe to say they were fucked militarily and had little or nothing with which to defend themselves.

prfctlefts wrote:

Hey soul singing The term The greatest Generation i used came from a book written by Tom Brokaw, IT has nothing to do with thinking one Generation is greater then the other. Maybe you should go read it or maybe you should do some soul searching instead of singing because your way out of tune.

I know where the term came from, but this country seems to have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. That generation was no different from any other generation, they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.