NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.honestreporting.com/images/lestercartoon.gif

Quick quiz question: what does the "D" stand for in "D-Day"?

Oh great, not this theme again. Yes, how dare that evil media, asking questions about the Iraq war instead of giving it blind and absolute support. Truly, we'd be better off with a Soviet-style, government-run propaganda machine as our only source of news.

Oh great, not this theme again. Yes, how dare that evil media, asking questions about the Iraq war instead of giving it blind and absolute support. Truly, we'd be better off with a Soviet-style, government-run propaganda machine as our only source of news.

How dare you question the war. That's unAmerican. :evil:

How stupid do you have to be to compare the liberation of France to the Iraq war? If you were going to compare the two, then the US would have to play the role of the Nazis, because THEY are the ones doing the invading. Perhaps the Germans should go in and save the Iraqis from the Americans. How ironic would that be?

You know, it's a damn sorry day when one of the fundamental rights of the American people, our duty and responsibility to question the actions of our government, one of the basic pillars upon which our whole society is built, is thrown out the window in the ironic name of "American Patriotisim."

The term "unAmerican" really creeps me out. It was used so liberally by McCarthy and his cronies to wreck the lives of so many people in what could only be described as a frenzied witch hunt that anyone who uses it now reeks of the nationalist fundamentalism that makes the US such a frightening country.

Quick quiz question: what does the "D" stand for in "D-Day"?

I know what VE day stands for if that's any help. :lol:

I've just been informed that the D doesn't stand for anything, but I don't think that's right

I'll take my question to a new topic and stop hijacking this one.

Oh great, not this theme again. Yes, how dare that evil media, asking questions about the Iraq war instead of giving it blind and absolute support. Truly, we'd be better off with a Soviet-style, government-run propaganda machine as our only source of news.
Oh don't worry, I am merely asking my own questions, you know. The media should regularly be put under scrutiny, just like any other institution, and I am giving a helping hand. Or do you believe that the media's way of reporting is always fair, honest and adequate and we should never question THEM, just like they claim to question everybody else? What isn't legitimate about asking whether the perception of today's journalists is not distorted beyond any reasolable proportion, and how well known historical events would look if reported from the same perspective?

Oh great, not this theme again. Yes, how dare that evil media, asking questions about the Iraq war instead of giving it blind and absolute support. Truly, we'd be better off with a Soviet-style, government-run propaganda machine as our only source of news.
Oh don't worry, I am merely asking my own questions, you know. The media should regularly be put under scrutiny, just like any other institution, and I am giving a helping hand. Or do you believe that the media's way of reporting is always fair, honest and adequate and we should never question THEM, just like they claim to question everybody else? What isn't legitimate about asking whether the perception of today's journalists is not distorted beyond any reasolable proportion, and how well known historical events would look if reported from the same perspective?

Then why post a cartoon that mocks the media for asking questions that are legitimate (some of them, anyway) in the Iraq context? For example, "do the French even want us there"? This question is ridiculous when applied to the French in WWII, but insert "Iraqis" and you have a legitimate inquiry. "Is this just another WWI?" This question is ridiculous when applied to D-Day, but a similar question comparing Iraq with Vietnam or various other wars is not so ridiculous. But you apparently believe that the media should not be asking these questions. Why?

Most countries' medias are run by the government, for the government, and any competing outlets are suppressed. I would rather have a media constantly accused of liberal nazi communist bias than a state propaganda organ.

Most countries' medias are run by the government, for the government, and any competing outlets are suppressed. I would rather have a media constantly accused of liberal nazi communist bias than a state propaganda organ.

I definitely agree with your sentiments, but would question whether most countries' media are government controlled: certainly some, but I believe it would be the minority.

I've just been informed that the D doesn't stand for anything, but I don't think that's right

Whoever told you this was correct. It is a military term to describe the time of an operation when an exact time has not been settled on. A similar military term is H-Hour.

Well, to be fair, a great many countries contain no indiginous media as we would understand the term. In parts of Africa, what passes for governing authorities care little about people's politics, and oppress on ethnic lines instead.

Apart the fact that WW2 has been compared to Iraq (!) what made me angry in the speech is that (if I understood it completely) it has been stated that WW2 started after the attack on Pearl Harbor ... typical ... and what about Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Danemark, France, Great Britain etc. being involved before Pearl Harbor ? WW2 didn't start late 1941 (with an intervention on the Western/African theatre in 1942) as WW1 didn't start late 1917.

Regards

On French TV there are many reportages speaking about the wide US involvement, the landing troops and the airborne troops ... showing many wartime movies and photos, interviews of veterans, ceremonies in the cemeteries etc. ... but they speak also largely about the British troops, especially about the Canadian soldiers, about the German point of view from the young soldiers in their positions etc. and also about the 177 French marine infantry commandos (Commando Kieffer) who landed in Ouistreham / Riva Bella during the first attack wave (Sword Beach). Generally the French journalists know nothing about the French SAS and sometimes they say big stupidities like Waffen-SS defending Omaha etc.
They speak also from Belgian, Polish troops etc. ... clearly not only speaking from one nation or one side involved.

BTW, never forget the historicly corect numbers and order of battle if someone of the right tries to make a gap by saying that this nation had more troops on D-Day than another.

Here the numbers of the first wave, from North to South on the beaches:

SWORD: 3th UK Inf. Div: 28.450 persons.
JUNO: 3th Canadian Inf. Div.: 21.400 persons.
GOLD: 50th UK Inf. Div: 24.970 persons.
OMAHA: 1st US Inf. Div. 24.250 persons
UTAH: 4th US Inf. Div: 23.250 persons

Airlandings:

CAEN: 6th UK Para Div: 4.255 troops
ST. Mère Eglise: East: 101 US Para Div; West: 82 US Para Div: Total: 13.000 troops.

And lets not forget the thousends of Polish, Frensch, Tshech, Belgian aso alied that trained also during the years after Dunquerke and who'ds units where spread out under the UK troops, but fought as independent units, or get on shore as SAS troops just before the landings (Kiefer Brigade aso..).

For those old men still alive, my tribute!
The "Légion d'honneur" (One Tscech received the highest grade, all the other allied countries received a officers grade represented each time by a survivor) given by the French president was good for these old men.

Quick quiz question: what does the "D" stand for in "D-Day"?

When Allied central command planned the invasion they had a 6 day window during which tide and moon conditions would be suited to invasion. These days were coded a, b, c, d, e and f. They then had to hope for good weather conditions, no storms etc, and days a, b and c were rained off essentially so they launched te invasion on D day.

Quick quiz question: what does the "D" stand for in "D-Day"?

When Allied central command planned the invasion they had a 6 day window during which tide and moon conditions would be suited to invasion. These days were coded a, b, c, d, e and f. They then had to hope for good weather conditions, no storms etc, and days a, b and c were rained off essentially so they launched te invasion on D day.

That is not correct. While you are partially right in discussing the window of operations with the tides, you are incorrect in both the window and the naming of the days. There was no A, B, C, E, or F day. For that matter, had the operation not concluded on June 6, it is likely that the Allied invasion would have had to wait until late July for the next favorable tide table.

The designation of D is a generic military term. It has been used time and time again for operations, but will forever be remembered as being associated with the operations on June 6, 1944.

BTW, never forget the historicly corect numbers and order of battle if someone of the right tries to make a gap by saying that this nation had more troops on D-Day than another.

Here the numbers of the first wave, from North to South on the beaches:

SWORD: 3th UK Inf. Div: 28.450 persons.
JUNO: 3th Canadian Inf. Div.: 21.400 persons.
GOLD: 50th UK Inf. Div: 24.970 persons.
OMAHA: 1st US Inf. Div. 24.250 persons
UTAH: 4th US Inf. Div: 23.250 persons

Airlandings:

CAEN: 6th UK Para Div: 4.255 troops
ST. Mère Eglise: East: 101 US Para Div; West: 82 US Para Div: Total: 13.000 troops.

And lets not forget the thousends of Polish, Frensch, Tshech, Belgian aso alied that trained also during the years after Dunquerke and who'ds units where spread out under the UK troops, but fought as independent units, or get on shore as SAS troops just before the landings (Kiefer Brigade aso..).

For those old men still alive, my tribute!
The "Légion d'honneur" (One Tscech received the highest grade, all the other allied countries received a officers grade represented each time by a survivor) given by the French president was good for these old men.

Are you sure about Juno being an entirely Canadian affair? Ive always heard that it was a mixture of British and Canadian forces that stormed Juno.

Oh great, not this theme again. Yes, how dare that evil media, asking questions about the Iraq war instead of giving it blind and absolute support. Truly, we'd be better off with a Soviet-style, government-run propaganda machine as our only source of news.
Oh don't worry, I am merely asking my own questions, you know. The media should regularly be put under scrutiny, just like any other institution, and I am giving a helping hand. Or do you believe that the media's way of reporting is always fair, honest and adequate and we should never question THEM, just like they claim to question everybody else? What isn't legitimate about asking whether the perception of today's journalists is not distorted beyond any reasolable proportion, and how well known historical events would look if reported from the same perspective?

Then why post a cartoon that mocks the media for asking questions that are legitimate (some of them, anyway) in the Iraq context? For example, "do the French even want us there"? This question is ridiculous when applied to the French in WWII, but insert "Iraqis" and you have a legitimate inquiry. "Is this just another WWI?" This question is ridiculous when applied to D-Day, but a similar question comparing Iraq with Vietnam or various other wars is not so ridiculous. But you apparently believe that the media should not be asking these questions. Why?
I don't believe they should not be asking these questions. I just don't believe that the media should demonstrate such a disgusting uniformity of thinking. Just as I am appaled when the media overwhelmingly and unconditionally supports the government's agenda, I am appaled when the media just as overwhelmingly unites in demonizing the government.

Besides, if it is legitimate to ask whether the Iraqis even wanted to get rid of Saddam, it was certainy legitimate to ask whether the French were really so oppressed and dissatisfied under the Vishi regime.

Oh great, not this theme again. Yes, how dare that evil media, asking questions about the Iraq war instead of giving it blind and absolute support. Truly, we'd be better off with a Soviet-style, government-run propaganda machine as our only source of news.
Oh don't worry, I am merely asking my own questions, you know. The media should regularly be put under scrutiny, just like any other institution, and I am giving a helping hand. Or do you believe that the media's way of reporting is always fair, honest and adequate and we should never question THEM, just like they claim to question everybody else? What isn't legitimate about asking whether the perception of today's journalists is not distorted beyond any reasolable proportion, and how well known historical events would look if reported from the same perspective?

Then why post a cartoon that mocks the media for asking questions that are legitimate (some of them, anyway) in the Iraq context? For example, "do the French even want us there"? This question is ridiculous when applied to the French in WWII, but insert "Iraqis" and you have a legitimate inquiry. "Is this just another WWI?" This question is ridiculous when applied to D-Day, but a similar question comparing Iraq with Vietnam or various other wars is not so ridiculous. But you apparently believe that the media should not be asking these questions. Why?
I don't believe they should not be asking these questions. I just don't believe that the media should demonstrate such a disgusting uniformity of thinking. Just as I am appaled when the media overwhelmingly and unconditionally supports the government's agenda, I am appaled when the media just as overwhelmingly unites in demonizing the government.

Yes, yes....retreat, retreat. The cartoon clearly condemned the media for asking certain questions, some of which were perfectly legitimate and important in the Iraq context, and you implicitly endorsed its message by posting it. I won't criticize you too hard for it though; you probably just thought it was "clever."

Of course the media should not reflexively oppose the government on every issue, just as it should not reflexively support it. But it seems to me that we could have used a few more hard questions from the media before the war. The New York Times--that bastion of ultra-liberalism, at least according to conservatives--spent the pre-war months gullibly passing along disinformation (http://slate.msn.com/id/2101124/) from an Iranian spy about Iraq's alleged WMD's. To me, this looks like a media that's afraid to ask any hard questions, at least not until it's too late.

But ah yes. I must remember the right-wing spin. Things are wonderful in Iraq, with the exception of a few bad incidents on which the media focuses like a laser, to the exclusion of everything else. Would that accurately describe how you view things? If so, could you please tell me what the good news is over there that the media should be celebrating? Running a few photographs of smiling Iraqi children is not going to change the fact that the big picture is looking very bad over there (as even some conservative commentators are now admitting). Ah, but what a pessimist I am, swallowing that liberal media line! We built a few schools, so everything is great! The schools, the schools, the schools!!

Besides, if it is legitimate to ask whether the Iraqis even wanted to get rid of Saddam, it was certainy legitimate to ask whether the French were really so oppressed and dissatisfied under the Vishi regime.

Indeed, and the answer to that question would have been obvious--the French overwhelmingly preferred the D-Day invasion to continuing life under Vichy. Or, more specifically, they preferred the swift return of an independent French government, which they understood to be part of the D-Day deal. Iraqis no doubt want self-government too, but it's not so clear that they're going to get it. In recent days, all signs suggest that the U.S. plans to establish a puppet government, which will have true sovereign power only in the eyes of those who are willing to suspend disbelief. But of course, that's what many people are willing to do--and they'll lash out at the "liberal media" if it tries to introduce some reality.

BTW, never forget the historicly corect numbers and order of battle if someone of the right tries to make a gap by saying that this nation had more troops on D-Day than another.

Here the numbers of the first wave, from North to South on the beaches:

SWORD: 3th UK Inf. Div: 28.450 persons.
JUNO: 3th Canadian Inf. Div.: 21.400 persons.
GOLD: 50th UK Inf. Div: 24.970 persons.
OMAHA: 1st US Inf. Div. 24.250 persons
UTAH: 4th US Inf. Div: 23.250 persons

Airlandings:

CAEN: 6th UK Para Div: 4.255 troops
ST. Mère Eglise: East: 101 US Para Div; West: 82 US Para Div: Total: 13.000 troops.

And lets not forget the thousends of Polish, Frensch, Tshech, Belgian aso alied that trained also during the years after Dunquerke and who'ds units where spread out under the UK troops, but fought as independent units, or get on shore as SAS troops just before the landings (Kiefer Brigade aso..).

For those old men still alive, my tribute!
The "Légion d'honneur" (One Tscech received the highest grade, all the other allied countries received a officers grade represented each time by a survivor) given by the French president was good for these old men.

Are you sure about Juno being an entirely Canadian affair? Ive always heard that it was a mixture of British and Canadian forces that stormed Juno.


You are correct, there where some Brits involved but only on compagnie level (approx.250 men of the 2nd Lancashire served as liasson with the other "commonwelth" troops).:-)