1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Attitude of U.S. press after WWII same as U.S. press after Iraq war

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought it was interesting. Guess some things never change with the press. Substitute Saddam for Hitler and Iraqis for the Germans and you have a carbon copy of the crap coming from the "unbiased" media in Iraq today.

    Life Magazine 1946 page one

    Life Magazine page two
     
    #1 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  2. Lil

    Lil Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1
    i don't get it. Europe WAS going to hell right after WW2.
    that's why they had the Marshall Plan. Truman signed the law creating the European Recovery Program, or Marshall Plan, only on 2 April 1948, nearly a full three years after the end of the war, and after it was all too clear the **** was about to hit the fan.

    if we learn anything from history, we better be prepared to respond a heck of a lot faster this time around to assisting their recovery. Because this time, we're not the celebrated liberators, but we're deep in hostile territory as a conquering army, and goodwill is, to put it mildly, in short supply.
     
    #2 Lil, Oct 21, 2003
  3. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    I saw this yesterday, and at first didn't realize the article was written 57 years ago. amazing how similar it sounds to so much of what you read today.
     
    #3 basso, Oct 21, 2003
  4. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    1. Don't believe the constant carping of our media on the ground in Iraq, whose "police blotter" style coverage has made it seem like we are stuck in a hostile situation. There is a resistance movement of Muslim radicals and former Baathists over there, but I doubt it has the support of a majority of the Iraqi people.

    2. We are responding quicker, Lil. What was the 87 billion that so many complained about for? We are trying to rebuild the nation of Iraq and yet these Democrats would prefer we do nothing in Iraq as far as winning the peace, just as long as they get their wish to take back the White House, our security be damned.

    Barbara Boxer (Calif.)
    Robert Byrd (W.Va.)
    John Edwards (N.C.)
    Bob Graham (Fla.)
    Tom Harkin (Iowa)
    Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
    Jim Jeffords (Vt.)
    Ted Kennedy (Mass.)
    John Kerry (Mass.)
    Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
    Pat Leahy (Vt.)
    Paul Sarbanes (Md.)

    All of these scumbags voted against the 87 billion we need to finish the job in Iraq.
     
    #4 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  5. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Jessica Wells
    The Community Web Log on Media, Government, and Politics in Midland, Texas
    Home of George & Laura Bush, General Tommy Franks....AND Wahoo McDaniel

    Nice :rolleyes:

    What your "friend" mailed you was from a completely biased internet source that endlessly searched the archives of the internet to find a single article that matches the majority of media today. In 1946 the bulk of media supported US actions in Europe --- please locate some more articles that support your "evil Liberal media" viewpoint besides a single issue of Life magazine.
     
    #5 underoverup, Oct 21, 2003
  6. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's the way it is with you libs. If it comes from a "right" leaning site, it is no good, but from a left-leaning site, it is "unbiased" and "centrist." Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
     
    #6 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  7. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    That's the way it is with you conservatives. If it comes from a "left" leaning site (which apparently 99.9% of the media is), it is no good, but from a right-leaning site, it is "unbiased" and "centrist". Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
     
    #7 Rocketman95, Oct 21, 2003
  8. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    RM95, it's not exactly the same, you see. The slamma also called a littany of democratic politicians "scumbags" because they disagree with his divine all-encompassing wisdom.
     
    #8 B-Bob, Oct 21, 2003
  9. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    They are scumbags. Why?
    1. They are trying to score political points with the appeasement crowd in their own party by voting against the bill, which to the appeasement folks, continues a "unnecessary" war

    2. They basically told the world that we aren't serious about winning the peace. We don't mind if the Baathists renew power and ultimately win a victory over the U.S. because it would help our political objectives. A victory would help Bush and we can't have our forces win the peace as well.

    3. They don't care about supporting our troops fighting over there by giving them the money to win the peace. They have offered no counter-proposal except for their talking points of "quagmire" and "where are the weapons" ad nauseum. I don't mind and in fact support making some of that money loans, but that is beside the point. These fools threw out the baby with the bathwater.

    And people wonder why I have such a disgust for the Left.

    ATL talk show host Neal Boortz takes it further than I do.
    Neal Boortz
     
    #9 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  10. Lil

    Lil Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1
    bamaslammer,

    1) i'm not too sure about the true situation in iraq. so i don't know which side to believe here. but nonetheless, you might have a point and the situation may not be as bad as many make it out to be.

    2) i'm a republican that supported the war, albeit for totally different reasons than the ones offered by GWB (i'm for fighting tyranny and dictatorships anywhere we can). and i appreciate every last one of those 87 billion dollars. i think on this we agree.

    ;)
     
    #10 Lil, Oct 21, 2003
  11. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Bamma you really think it's going to be "finished" with just this 87 billion?
     
    #11 mc mark, Oct 21, 2003
  12. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, of course not. But it's a start......a start those aforementioned scumbags don't even want to take.
     
    #12 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  13. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    No, of course not. But it's a start......a start those aforementioned scumbags don't even want to take.

    Perhaps that's something that should have been considered by the Bush administration when determining the viability of going into Iraq. Or do you think Congress is obliged to simply give whatever a President wants?

    What if the cost were $200 billion? $500? $2 trillion? $10 trillion?

    Is there some point at which you would agree that its an unacceptable cost? If so, where is the line, and why do you draw it there?

    I think $87 billion is fine and necessary - I also see why other people would opt for a lower threshold.
     
    #13 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  14. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think the benefits outweigh any financial costs we may endure over the long run, but I do think you reach a point where enough is enough.
    I think Congress should give the Prez what he wants when we are fighting a war and parlimentary manuverings can take far too long to get the money where we need it. But if they need more moolah, it should be the form of loans.

    But we can not abandon Iraq before our task is completed. We have to stay on target, regardless of the costs.
     
    #14 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  15. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Interesting. I thought the argument was that the liberal media was anti-Bush and anti-Republicans. Why exactly were they slamming the FDR/Truman efforts in that case?

    Oh, maybe they aren't ideologically biased, but instead try to sell newspapers. No, that couldn't be it. Perhaps they were anti-Bush in the sense that Bush Sr. was a pilot in WW2 and therefore likely supported the post-war efforts, and so the media had to slam it?
     
    #15 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  16. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    But we can not abandon Iraq before our task is completed. We have to stay on target, regardless of the costs.


    This is a dangerous philosophy to start with. That's what gets countries involved in things they shouldn't be - pride, the unwillingness to accept failure, the pouring of resources down a hole that can't be dug out of.

    I'm not saying that's what's happening here, certainly - things are going fairly well. However, virtually every mess a country gets into comes from that view of how things should be done, in my opinion.
     
    #16 Major, Oct 21, 2003
  17. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    Thank you, Major.

    I'd almost forgotten what common sense looked like around here, what with people defending themselves by saying "see, look, there are people more vitriolic than me!" Amazing.
     
    #17 B-Bob, Oct 21, 2003
  18. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    No intelligent opinion on a subject start throwing out insults ---
    btw - no one wonders why you have a disgust for the "left" bama.
     
    #18 underoverup, Oct 21, 2003
  19. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, what are they then? Do they still "support" our troops as they so claim? I think it is quite interesting that of those 12, several of them not coincidentally running for President. And I can appreciate they must sew up their base, which is of the far-left wing variety of various "activists" of one stripe or another. But is it prudent to do so at the expense of the security of their nation and our standing in the world?

    What do you think is going to happen if we just cut and run like the Dems want us to? Now if you're saying I'm putting words in their mouths, well, what do they support? Obviously if you spend every second of everyday telling the liberal parrot media how the war was unjust, there were no weapons, what about the looted antiquities, we're being a unilateralist bully, we are pissing off too many people and then you vote no on a bill that would provide funding for finishing the war, what do you call that? Supporting the war? Oh, yeah, right, selling out the men and women in uniform is patriotic because dissent is good and neo-cons are bad. Sure, yeah.....all righty then. :rolleyes:

    As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't support our troops by making sure they have the monetary means to get the job done is a scumbag.
     
    #19 bamaslammer, Oct 21, 2003
  20. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Operation Iraqi Freedom
     
    #20 giddyup, Oct 21, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page