I had mixed feelings about going to see Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers, the new Clint Eastwood-directed movie about the lives of the soldiers immortalized in Joe Rosenthal’s iconic photo of the Stars and Stripes being hoisted at Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The final screenplay was written by Paul Haggis, who has been a featured speaker at antiwar rallies sponsored by the hard-left radicals at International ANSWER. And some of his comments about the movie suggested it could turn out to be a mere polemic that would appeal to the sort of person who believes that all good war films ought to be antiwar films at heart, and not many others.
However, a piece in the Christian Science Monitor gave reason to hope for some nuance from Haggis:
In the movie, a loathsome government official pushes the battle-scarred soldiers to trade on their brief celebrity to help raise money for the war.
“You want to hate this guy,” observes Haggis. “But then you give him the most compelling speech in the movie – the reason why they have to do all this – and it changes everything.”
So I went to my local googolplex and…
…was a bit disappointed. Flags of Our Fathers was executed well technically. Its battle scenes rang fairly true with the vets of Iwo Jima who have seen it. However, to the extent that the movie seeks to de-mythologize the war, I found myself largely in agreement with the review in Film Threat:
I’m not sure if Eastwood thinks nothing but 15-year olds are going to see this movie, or if he’s forgotten every similarly-themed film released since 1957’s “Paths of Glory.†He may have famously stripped away the romance of the Old West in “Unforgiven,†but the war movie, unlike the western at that time, is not a genre in need of de-mythologizing. Elem Klimov, Stanley Kubrick, and Lewis Milestone are among the many who did it earlier, and better (Kubrick did it three times, and Milestone did it the year Eastwood was born). War is hell, heroism is subjective, and seemingly insignificant events are exploited for the benefit of the power elite. Who knew?
The part with which I disagree is the last part, as I think winning WWII benefited many more people than “the power elite.” But I would have added that there are also any number of other movies that drive home the message that young men may start their military service to fight for their country, but end up valuing the bond with their fellow soldiers as much or more. And that the first casualty of war is truth. Granted, it’s far too much to expect originality from Hollywood, but that places all the higher of a burden on the execution, which in this case is flawed.
The filmmakers likely believed the de-mythologizing of the battle was necessary to heighten the contrast when some of the solders who hoisted the flag(s) on Mt. Suribachi are pressed into service stateside for the war bond drive. (That it fits the “support the troops, oppose the mission” philosophy is probably just a bonus.) Some of the Iwo Jima vets thought the significance of the bond drive was overplayed, but I would argue that this angle is the fresh part of the film and probably should have been more of a focus in the movie (if it could have been made more rich and interesting). After all, it seems as if the use of the famous photo as propaganda is the source of the themes Haggis really wanted to explore.
Indeed, if he and Eastwood were interested in a movie with “relevance” to the issues of today’s war, and particularly the invasion of Iraq, the introductory narration noting that by the time of Iwo Jima, Americans were getting restless and tired of the war should not just glide by; rather, it should have been emphasized, as I do not think this is how most people today think of WWII—and it might give a little perspective on attitudes about Iraq. Moreover, while the movie notes the importance of using the soldiers supposedly in the photo to raise money for the war, it never follows through to reveal just how successful that drive was (and it was enormously successful). Doing so would have underscored the gap when the movie ultimately details how ordinary the lives of these men were after the war.
No doubt that the filmmakers—Haggis and some of the production team, at the very least—seem to hope the movie will stir discussion about how war generates a need for heroes on the homefront. I would phrase it a bit differently, as I think that in times of war, Americans (like other peoples) want to show their support for those in the military and that recognizing heroes in one way they do so. This particular story stacks the deck of any such discussion, as the men are being glorified for raising flag(s), which they deem as not being particularly heroic (though at least one of the main characters does at least one very heroic thing, which I won’t spoil). And while the movie alludes to some of the press of the day being interested in de-mythologizing the photo, it seems undeniable that many in the media have undergone a sea change in their attitudes towards war coverage—as exemplified by the fact that the photographers on Iwo Jima could have “blown the whistle” on certain things I won’t spoil here, but obviously did not. More significantly, this sea change has occurred as technology has made a global mediaspace an increasingly important front in any war.
Since WWII, we have seen Eddie Adams win the the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for spot news photography with his photo General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong Prisoner in Saigon, yet most people discussing the issues raised by Flags of Our Fathers will know that Adams regretted taking the picture and praised the general as a hero of a just cause, later writing:
Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths…What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?’
How do you know you wouldn’t have pulled the trigger yourself?
For that matter, most discussing Flags of Our Fathers will not know how the US media misreported the US victory in the Tet offensive as a defeat, instead of a huge military victory.
It is also likely that most are aware of the photos of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib, but are likely unaware (or will not recall) that the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and London’s Mirror all printed phony photographs of US soldiers threatening, raping and abusing Iraqi civilians. Or that the New York Times ran an interview with a man who falsely claimed to be a victim at Abu Ghraib.
And most will be unaware of the heroism of US soldiers including Capt. Brian Chontosh, Sgt. R.J. Mitchell, Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart, Sgt. 1st. Class Javier Camacho, Senior Airman Jason D. Cunningham, Colonel James Coffman, Jr., Master Sgt. Donald R. Hollenbaugh, Sgt. Jeremiah Workman, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Juan M. Rubio, Marine Lance Cpl. Carlos Gomez-Perez, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Justin Jewett, Petty Officer 1st Class Nathan McDonell, and Maryland National Guard Sgt. Michael McMullen—all of whom have amazing stories, none of which got significant national media coverage.
Instead, you get reportage from Michael Ware, who said:
Don’t forget also that this is an information war. This is a propaganda war. This war, as, you know, insurgents said way back in 2003, isn’t going to be won on the battlefield. It’s going to be won on the air waves. It turns out it’s going to be won or lost on the internet. So these things become critically important.
Ware spent his time at Time embedding with the “insurgents” in Iraq. More recently, he was instrumental in airing a jihadi sniper mission on CNN.
A movie which tackled the same issues as Flags of Our Fathers but used the images supplied by Eddie Adams or Michael Ware might be a more interesting one. But don’t look for Eastwood to be making it. His next project is Letters From Iwo Jima, which will tell the story of that battle from the Japanese perspective.
hmmmm, thanks for that Karl. I was a little surprised when the reviewer here (dallas morning news) opened with:
it makes more sense now that i have some additional background.
Friendly fire is a constant problem in wartime. One story told to me by a WWII army vet was when a group of Americans found a cache of german machine guns. They fired them for laughs (or some other reason, my memory is bad on this, I don’t think they were fighting). However, soldiers learn to recognize the sound of enemy guns. Another American soldier in another group a few miles away called in a strike on their position.
I don’t think losing a soldier to friendly fire makes them less of a hero. I refer to the reviewer’s statements, not maggie’s.
Was Iwo Jima, the movie or the actual battle, a good place to insert a discussion about the role of the press and the need for heroes during wartime?
WWII was going quite well for the allies by the time the battle for Iwo Jima was fought…Germany surrendered two months later, and Japan itself surrendered three months after Germany…
I won’t let this one go.
I guess you could say the war in the Pacific was going well by the time the battle for Iwo Jima played out. The battle for Midway was basically the turning point in the war against Japan. However, the Japanese were tenacious fighters who would not give up no matter the odds. Whether we can point to specific Japanese character traits or to anti-American propaganda perpetuated by the Japanese leaders, the effect is the same. The battles for those tiny islands were bloody and the Japanese rarely surrendered.
Until the development of the atomic bomb, the belief was that the allies would have to invade Japan to finish the war. Casualties were estimated in the millions (IIRC), probably mostly civilian but I’m not sure. I am working from memory.
Ultimately, my point is that hindsight is incredibly easy. I fail to see how it could be somehow wrong that Iwo Jima was used as a rallying point. And I also fail to see how the movie is somehow “wrong” to use the battle as a commentary on media and government practices during the war, if indeed that’s what the movie is about. At the time of the push for heroes from Iwo Jima (if that indeed happened, don’t know) the allies had no idea that they would soon have the destructive force of the atomic bomb. That knowledge was restricted to a very select few.
This sounds like a questioning of the timing to me.
Note how I just broke the rule I stated in the post that follows. I guess I found a reserve of energy after all.
I’m not sure whose belief it was that we’d actually have to invade Japan to end the war, cranky. We could bomb them at will and could have easily blockaded them until they surrendered.
Was their really any chance that America would stop fighting WWII in the final minutes of the 4th quarter?
An invasion was being planned. I don’t intend to debate that, since I know it to be true.
BTW, not only did you continue to drift off-topic, you didn’t use my actual handle.
Sure there was a plan to invade Japan, but it was unlikely to be carried out. If it wasn’t the bomb, it would probably have been blockade…what was the hurry?
Back on topic, I think the months after Pearl Harbor would have been a better setting for a film concerning the role of heroes, fund raising and the press than one set less than six months before the end of the war.
Monkyboy, you’re not bringing anything worthwhile to this or any thread. Stop wasting our time.
Good thing. I was worried you’d give away what happens!
Maybe that would explain why they needed heroes to show the people back home.
That [an invasion wasn’t planned] would have been news to my father’s Ranger unit and a couple of hundred thousand other troops who were embarking from Ft. Lewis, Washington, as the task force for the Northern part of the pincer movement invasion of mainland Japan when the war ended.
Anyway, my nephew blogged about the movie. He saw it the other night. Some friends of mine are talking about going next Sunday. I haven’t decided yet if I’m going with them.
Do you have no concept of how hard a blockade would have been for us to pull off at that time? And given the resolve and resourcefullness of the Japanese people, how long it may have lasted?
What was the hurry? Good question, what is the hurry in Iraq?
Let me see if I have it straight:
P&I (Monky’s new name which stands for Pointless & Irritating) thinks that we never would have invaded because, hey, what’s the rush? However, we need to get our sorry asses out of Iraq because 3 years is not enough.
What’s the rush, P&I?
gogolplex? Did you mean googolplex? If so, that’s already got a definition.
– Around the time just prior to the bomb drop, several extremist groups, in and out of the Japanese army, had tried coups on the Palace, against the Emporer, who had already prepared a recording suing for peace. The worst of these attemps trashed the offices of the Japanese Consulate General, looking for the recording, and was only finally put down by the loyalist royal army units. the majority of Japanese military units were prepared to fight to the death, regardless of massive losses away from the mainland.
– Truman certainly was presented with a war plan for mainland invasion, one that predicted a half million, or more, American deaths, with between 2 and 4 million deaths on the Japanese side.
– Given that choice, along with intel that indicated Stalin was seriously considering further expansion in Europe, and weighing his chances of a fight against us, Trumen decided the drops would kill two birds with one stone, which as history shows us, it did. Even if the bombs hadn’t totally crushed Japanese resolve, the invasion plans would have been altered considerably, since we’d now be dealing with a devatsed enemy. It wasn’t an accident that one bomb was detonated not far from the Japanese Naval acadamy, and Army officers headquarters, since a great deal of the extremists were from those units. What is not as widely known is that mass fire bombing proceeded the drop of the atom bombs, to an even greater effect than they had.
Interestingly enough neither MacArthur nor Eisenhower saw any military reason for the use of the bombs. Interesting because MacArthur was so worried about Stalins designs on Manchuria.
Blockade? Have you heard about the losses caused by Kamikaze attacks?
“The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. Thirty-four allied ships and craft of all types had been sunk, mostly by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged. The fleet had lost 763 aircraft. Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded. Navy casualties were tremendous, with a ratio of one killed for one wounded as compared to a one to five ratio for the Marine Corps”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm
Also, as I remember it, allied POWs were dying at a rate of 1000 a day at the end of the war. Would you have allowed that to go on?
It wasn’t until Katrina, when the discussion was about things with which I was intimately familar: levees, construction, demolition, etc.; that I began to notice one of the hallmarks of most leftwing positions is a total ignorance of the concept of logistics. monkyboy is reinforcing my opinion with nearly every post.
2,000 died on the first day at Iwo Jima.
As for whether Iwo Jima was an appropriate way to launch a discussion about the need for heroes in wartime, I would suggest that monky either: (1) get the book; (2) see the movie; or (3) read a more conventional review of the movie that would spell out in greater detail precisely why the surviving men who raised the flag(s) were sent out on the war bond drive.
That monky doesn’t know anything about it is not surprising, but it does have the salutary effect of disproving the actus snark—it would appear there are things in the movie that some (at least on his side of the aisle) do not know about this part of US history, hence the spoiler-free tag.
Let’s not forget the idea of local and state preparedness and action, as illustrated by Mayor Nagins Underwater Motor Pool.
What am I saying? It’s BushMcChimpyHitler’s fault!
Slart,
Spelling is corrected, though the misnomer remains intentional.
Thanks.
Actually, I like Googolplex in its current usage. It’s certainly more useful than the existing one is.
No, WWII was going much worse than you indicate.
Ever hear of the battle of the Bulge?
How many casualties do you think we took on Iwo Jima?
If the present day Democratic party was around back then, they would have been pressing for a retreat within ten minutes of the beginning of either one of those battles.
What a crock.
Who do they think these movies are for?
Women don’t want to watch war-movies and men don’t want to watch whiners.
The success of every war movie is directly proportional to the heroism portrayed.
‘Pearl Harbor’ as chick flick? lost money
‘Alamo’ based on discredited book demonizing American icons? lost money
Lord of the Rings? Narnia? Reciepts in the Billions… because Hollywood didn’t get to eF them up with ‘self reflection’.
I know my history… I’ve seen ‘The Sands of Iwo Jima’… it is a better movie this this P.O.S. just like ‘Tora Tora Tora’ is better then Ben Affleck gets a ‘Pearl Harbor’ job.
I don’t go to a war movie to be educated and am insulted when it’s propagandized.
Trust me… I read the book.
I go to see hero’s tales portrayed heroically.
Make a movie where Rommel is a flawed hero… fine…
Make a movie where American’s liberate Kuwait in 100 hours and it will gross the big bucks.
Unless it is ‘Clooney-nam does larceny in the desert’…
Make a Syriana and you get box office kinda like… ‘Flags of Our Fathers’
I read Flags of Our Fathers. I think there were two major ideas in the book. First, a son’s search to understand his father more deeply, and second, to understand his father’s generation, their sacrifices and basic decency. I was deeply moved by the book (I haven’t seen the film yet). I came away with a view of John Bradley as a great man, humble, loving, and giving. I was envious of James Bradley for having such a father.
Went to see the movie on Friday night, 10:00 show. There were maybe 30 people in the theater, and just before the start time a man with grey hair came in, pushing a wheelchair in which sat a very much older man. They crossed the front row of seats and laboriously the first man helped the very old man up from the wheelchair and into a seat.
There is only one reason I can imagine why these two would attend such a late showing. Everyone else in the place was undoubtedly thinking of the same reason.
At the end of the movie, they were getting up to leave. A middle aged fellow left his wife and went over to offer help getting the oldster back in the wheelchair. I overheard them discussing the film, and what his rating in the military was, and the answers from the older two, about how the ratings were set up long ago.
Semper fi, and just – damn.
As far as the box office, the movie made roughly $10 million over the weekend, which is right about where Eastwood’s movies tend to open—so I would not dismiss the film commercially just yet, however much I might agree that LotR would not have done as well if everyone had given up because Frodo was stuck in a quagmire.
As for the relationship to the book, I think the film is at its weakest when dealing with the themes nobody important mentions—they are largely relegated to third level of sub-plot.
As for the vets, I think many will enjoy the movie for the quality of the battle scenes and the theme of the bond among soldiers, though as noted above, there is not much original in that aspect of the movie.
Once again monkeyboy proves he hasn’t ever read a history book. Try reading, sometime, about what actually is and was, and quit treating us to your impressions of how thing might have, should have been.
If you need living history there monk, I can line up a bunch of 80 year old Okies from the 45th Division who were training up for a transfer from the ETO to the PTO and that “unplanned” invasion (as well as 3rd and 36th Divisions).
The 5th Division (and my grandfather)was being eyed for that as well.
Of course 1st and 2nd Marines, 40th and 7th Divisions were already there. I was going ot have to be a massive operation. Projected US casualties, based on Okinawa, 1 million men.
Planning doesn’t equal doing, RTO.
Why on earth would we have sacrificed 1 million men to invade a country that was no longer a threat to anyone?
may i please have some of what you’re smoking P&I?
If it wasn’t clear that you lack a concept of “fighting to win” this cinches it.
You also aren’t clear on the term “threat” apparently.
READ A BOOK!
P&I ignores the fact that troops were being deployed for that very purpose.
This is where P&I would argue that sanctions and containment would have been useful, if there had actually been a United Nations in existance to enforce them.
Repeat after me…POINTLESS & IRRITATING
Because in days past we fought to win. Decisively, completely and without mercy. Point being that the vanquished would have no doubt as to the resolve we could bring to bear, should they ever think about attacking us again.
If Iraq were being fought in the same manner, it would have been over some time ago with many fewer causalities, on either side.
RTO Trainer Recommended Reading List (WWII):
Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy
American Caesar by William Manchester
Touched with Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific by Eric M.Bergerud
Eagle Against the Sun: The American War With Japan by Ronald Spector
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II by Iris Chang
Russia at War: 1941-1945 by Alexander Werth
We Few: The Marine Corps 400 in the War Against Japan by James R. Dickenson
Goodbye Darkness by William Manchester
I never said we wouldn’t have won, just that invading Japan with ground forces would have been pointless.
The nukes we dropped on Japan were impressive, a single plane could carry the equivalent firepower of a thousand planes…but we did indeed have thousands of planes back then.
We could have done the same thing to Japan with conventional bombs that we did to them with nukes…and they probably would have surrendered.
On a side note…even adjusting for inflation, one modern B-2 cost the same as 1000 B-17s.
Amen, brother!
It wasn’t too long ago that that Nancy Peel-My- Face posted a question to Cheney on her website to the effect “Why has it taken us longer to win in Iraq than it did to defeat facism in WWII?” Beyond the stunning, almost transcendant idiocy contained in that bulbous question, let’s just go with it.
Carpet bomb all areas in Iraq, without warning, where we know significant insurgent/jihandist cells are hiding. Screw the civilian casualties, we’ll never kill as many civilians as we did in the firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden or Bern. While we are at it, carpet bomb the Bekaa Valley and those villages in the Afgan/Pakistani border regions. Do that for at least a year, again with no consideration of civilian casualties. Invade with massive force when ready. All jihadists captured will be vigorously interrogated and then summarily executed by the provisions of the Geneva Convention as they constitute nonuniformed combatants or spies. Drop tactical nukes on Irans nuclear program wherever we think that they may be making bad stuff. Again, leave the JAGS and army lawyers at home because we are operating on WWII rules now.
Anybody want to help? How about you P&I? Oh sorry, I forgot that you don’t think that there’s much of a threat. Carry on!
You’re hopless. I can’t help. You are so ignorant of history that there simply is no place to start.
Proof: You don’t know that we DID do those things with conventional bombs. To Kobe and Tokyo. Tokyo: 100,000 daead. The most destructive single attack in history, even more so than Nagasaki or Hiroshima. 16 sq miles obliterated. And that was only the first of four such attacks on Tokyo, 3 February 1945.
RTO, it is hopeless. P&I (POINTLESS & IRRITATING) is merely attempting to tweak the collected ‘Thugs. He will ignore facts such as Kobe and Tokyo (as well as Dresden, Berlin and Bonn) because they are irrelevant to his work of tweaking the dastardly conservatives. Of course, he was a Rethuglican until 2004. Right? Right?
The swamp land remains unsold…
RTO,
All you’re saying is the Japanese were as boneheaded as the Bush administration.
They weren’t.
A lot changed between February and August of 1945.
1. The Japanese failed to stop us on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
2. Their ally Germany had surrendered months ago.
3. The Soviets, fresh from crushing Germany, moved east and wiped out the last Japanese outpost in Korea…crushing a million man army in a couple of weeks.
I understand people try to shape the past to support their current…beliefs, but it’s a real stretch to say the Japanese didn’t realize the war was lost in August of 1945.
THE RUSSIANS WERE COMING! THE RUSSIANS WERE COMING!!!!
”….[but] it’s a real stretch to say the Japanese didn’t realize the war was lost in August of 1945.”
– And thus, once again, a member of “extreme non-reality community” questions the extreme non-reality of another “extreme non-reality based community”. Something like an endless loop thing I would guess.
– Maybe even qualifies for “reentrant”, since he keeps clinging to the same loopy idea’s everytime there’s a chance he could escape.
Good gravy! The old phrase “like being called ugly by a bullfrog…” comes to mind.
Another in the endless examples of POINTLESS & IRRITATING
Right, back up your nonsense. Tell us what you’ve read on the subject.
Spielberg’s
does not count.
No kidding? Or do you mean that Japan came to this realization in the first 5 days of August 1945 and NOT sometime after 6 August.
Funny how the Japanese rejected formal surrender offers even after 6 August. You do know what happened 6 August 1945, right?
BTW, the Soviets who you hold in such high esteem, didn’t begin their campaign against Japan until 8 August. Perhaps you’d give us an anlysis if that decision?
Here’s a bit of advice: (as much as I disdain Wikipedia, it is handy) Type your responses here then before clicking Submit, go through your post. Identify the nouns. Plug them into Wikipedia and read up. This might save you from what should be embarassment.
Monkeyboy’s inability to accept reality is stunning. He has to reject countless 1st person accounts published from the POV of all ranks involved in all branches of the service at the time of the preparation for the invasion of Japan in order to assert his nonsense. That there were many Divisions training for and movement of many other Divisions had actually begun is completely lost on him in his boneheaded effort to win his point. When movement begins that is more than “a plan”; that is EXECUTION.
His assertions of the Japanese will to fight being broken also are at odds with reality. Thats why it took TWO atomic bombs to force the actual surrender.
But, for idiotarians like monkeyboy, history is whatever you say it is. What a complete tool. Give it up you moron. Reality isn’t on your side.
Thanks, SGT Ted,
The fact that the Normandy invasion was called off hours before it was scheduled to start plays no part in your equation, I take it?
huh? isn’t it a bit early to be drinking? or I mean, to have already drunk so much?
They called off a region of France? How odd.
Incidentally, you don’t suppose thre’s a difference between “call off” and “delay” do you?
There’s even a term in military planning: “operational pause.” What do you suppose that might mean?
You guys make it sound like the landing craft were in the water and heading for the beaches of Japan when the surrender was announceed…they weren’t.
History shows that the allies didn’t invade Japan.
There were many reasons why we didn’t have to…or why we didn’t invade Japan before they surrendered.
It wasn’t just because we were willing to slaughter more civilians back then than we are willing to now.
– Yes. The other reason is we stuffed all the Socialists, and Marxists in the fucking closet for the durations, because what with having a war to fight, we didn’t have time for all the fucktard whining, and hand wringing.
– Other than that, things went along swimmingly, once we hammered the Germans senseless, and almost bombed the Japanese into sushi.
Actually BBh, the socialists were running the war during WWII.
What’s this all about?
The Republicans and the military trying blame their recent failures on some imaginary restrictions placed on them instead of their own incompetence?
Good luck with that…
BWA HA HA HA haaaaaaa.
Hey. You got one right. Admit it. You looked it up, didn’t you?
One reason we didn’t have to: the A-bomb. Of couse terhe were many reasons we didn’t invade Japan before tehy surrendered: The Solomons Campaign, the Java Campaign, the Guadalcanal Capmaign, the Leyte Campaign…
The dance card was a tad full.
Yeah. Way to reframe the opposing argument in manner that reflects well on your side and dishonestly discredits ours. Not going to work though.
No one want’s to “slughter civilians.” I don’t beleive that they did then either. However, there is so much restraint being practiced in how we wage war, not to appear to be disproportionate, an idea that’s been inadvisedly incorporated into some aspects of international law, even other than with respect ot civilian casualties, that we draw the conclusions out and give the bad guys time to regroup, reorganize and remass. It’s tactical errors like this that can cost strategically.
I refer you to Ralph Peters: Like him or love him, he’s scary smart and it’s too damn bad he left the Army as only a LTC.
“Actually BBh, the socialists were running the war during WWII.”
– Well you actually got one right for a change actus’s dumber alternate. Except it was the “National Socialists” on the German side under that great humanitarian you SecProgs are starting to immulate more and more each day.
– But I’m sure that’s what you ment to say. Right?
Proof I’m not as smart as Ralph Peters. Here’s the right link.
Peters is an interesting guy, but he’s forgetting Pakistan has nukes, too.
Iraq and Afghanistan are purely Republican and Pentagon undertakings.
They’ve had a blank check and a free hand…
Talk among yourselves about what went wrong, but I doubt you guys will be given another shot at war by America for another generation or two.
The Democrats and monkyboy are purely fairweather friends, and by friends I mean spineless, lying chickenshits.
– Which will just about put you beyond draft age monkey, so you’re all set. common. I can see the grin. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it. Now if you could just get ole Charlie Rangle(D-NY) to stop proposing that nasty idea.
– Seriously. You have to be braindead to believe that if the Jihadists gain numbers, and power, and start to attack us openly elsewhere, and here on our own shores, that we won’t go to war, and fight back. If your side were in office and didn’t do exactly that, they’d be thrown out in a week. You’re kidding yourself.
Translation: I’ve been spnaked hard repeatedly so I must bring up new subjects to distract from my inability to support a single word I’ve typed previously.
It’s okay. We grok.
Only Barbara Lee of California voted against H.J.RES.64.
IOW: You still don’t know what you’re talking about.
(But, please, don’t let that stop you.)
No invasion of Japan?
Tell it to my Dad, who already (in June) had orders, along with the rest of his Signal Corps company, to Luzon, there to prepare for participating in support of the second wave—and a tentative TO&E, which he and his CO were in the process of vetting for errors, omissions, and excesses, by request of the War Department.
monkyboy, like the rest of the America is Always Wrong brigade, thinks he’s coming up with something new and different. Dad, along with neighbors, friends and relatives, hashed that sort of thing out regularly—his best friend in those days was a Marxist. Their conclusion was that, absent the atomic bomb and invasion, we would still have been bombing and blockading Japan in 1960, having killed or maimed 100+ million people, mostly Japanese but with a healthy admixture of Chinese and Southeast Asians. (Before you dismiss that as rednecks with too much beer, this is the same brain trust that predicted the Khomenei revolution with everything but the names, and got the timing within a year—in 1954.)
My uncle was an engineer officer in Europe, having been tossed out of the Pacific Theater for reasons I’ve mentioned here before. (His name was on the orders that had the planes too close together at Hickam.) He had a friend, by then on Okinawa, whose assignment was odd—planning the defense of the Japanese Home Islands, supported by the best intel and maps available. That unit’s output then went to CINCPAC as input to those planning the invasion.
There was never any serious thought given to a blockade-and-bombing campaign for Japan. Oh, it was brought up as a contingency, and I suspect that you can find records of that, but it falls into the same category as all other contingency plans. The Pentagon has plans for the invasion of every country on Earth, and Antarctica. It’s the military version of Solitaire. Very few of them ever even get dusted off, much less used.
monkyboy also makes the error of treating nuclear weapons as all-purpose, all-consuming bogeymen. It’s a bomb, bigger than most and damn difficult to build. Pakistan has nuclear bombs. It’s pretty damned unlikely that they have many of them—there just isn’t that much fissile material running around loose. Unwillingness to invade Pakistan has much more to do with pointed rocks sticking up out of the ground and a desire to give them a chance to clean up their act than any fear of being blown up by A-bombs. It isn’t all that long since the U.S. Army fielded an atomic-tipped missile whose blast radius exceeded its range.
Regards,
Ric
Actually,
I don’t think “America is Always Wrong.”
I just think Texas is usually wrong when it comes to war…I think the rest of us have it about right.
ooooh, you just had to encourage him, didn’t you!?
In other words, you’re a bigot. But we knew that.
Regards,
Ric
Johnson and Bush, Ric…
oh fer three.
Carter and Clinton, monkey
Oh for the love of gawd.
The Alamo and The Confederacy, BBh.
O Say, can you see…
Magnum PI
monky was a Goldwater guy? Who knew?
So we’ll secede. I’ve been suggesting it for years. How ‘bout it, BJ? We can appoint George Bush as Premier, just to keep the monkys on the prod. The tolls on I10/20/30/40 alone would keep us in business.
The difference between L. Johnson (a man I loathed; I never met him, but I’ve been patted on the head as a child by several of his toadies) and W. J. Clinton is so tiny as to require mass spectrometry to reliably detect it. BTW if you liked Lyndon, you’ll love Pelosi. She isn’t a Texan, but all the rest of it’s there.
I have never suggested that the people I support are above criticism—that’s your tactic. It simply boggles my mind what you estimate to be better!
Regards,
Ric
Man, that’s some industrial-grade stupid. I’ve scrubbed more intelligent life-forms off of outboard motors, ferchrissakes. For everyone else, I would recommend Edwin Hoyt’s ‘Japan’s War’, which looks at the war with Japan from the perspective of an American author who has lived in Japan for quite some time. Definitely thought-provoking. Here’s a quote:
In The New Dealers’ War, by Thomas J. Flemming, the author argues that FDR’s insistence on the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan unnecessarily prolonged the war. As much as I wanted to have one more thing to dislike about FDR, I couldn’t follow the author on that one. Any result short of complete surrender on their part would have stored up trouble for the future. That’s one instance where FDR was absolutely right. I would vote for someone as uncompromising as that right now even with all his other faults.
I’m having a serious flashback to high School in the seventies when everybody called me Tex even though I grew up in….Massachusetts!
Which only goes to show that hope is not lost. I now live in PA but both my brother and I are locked into conservative/libertarian ideals (although I’m a Christian and he’s an atheist, which leads to some interesting discussions.)
Maybe I should just change my handle to avoid further confusion (unless the ongoing humourous aspects of this identity crisis entertain the PW masses.) I was thinking of PHack since I’ve been called a Partisan Hack several times.
Oh, well! Ric, I have as much respect for you and your insightfulness as anyone here but I must decline your most gracious offer to secede with Texas as I am not…um…from Texas.
Any questions?
Oh Godless one, i am inagreement even nthough it appears that the moral sanctity of uncompromising values has been under seige for some time. Unless, of course, you are talking about abortion, affirmative action, gay rights…