How the news would report D-Day today

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by manu1959, Jun 30, 2005.

  1. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    from a friend ...no link

    June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children.
    Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

    Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity.
    "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

    The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction.

    A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

    Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to big beer," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

    Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon, a so-called "atomic bomb." Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by Americans.
    Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored but so far, remains unproven.

    Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses pose a public health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said.
    "It's their mess and we don't intend to clean it up."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Y'know, that'd be funny as Hell if it weren't so tragically true.
     
  3. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I doubt D-Day would have happened under present circumstances. The Republicans would still be attempting to figure out what to do about the Japanese and would be trying their best to ignore Hitler. Sort of like they are doing now with North Korea.
    "We're trying diplomacy here. We know Hitler is an evil man, but we feel the Russians can take care of him. We really don't believe Hitler is that dangerous. We are still exploring our options at this stage."
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    So Gabby, we should just bomb the hell out of NK? Is that what you are saying?
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Obviously history isn't a priority at Berkley; otherwise, you'd know your statement is ridiculous. The same questions you try and lay on the Republicans were asked by the then-Democrat administration.

    And I haven't noticed Republicans having ANY problem with what to do about an enemy. There were those eight years prior to the current administration however where bin Laden was allow to do as he pleased and dream up whatever he wanted, and Saddam was allowed to snub his nose at UN Resolution after UN Resolution with NOT A DAMNED THING being done about either one.
     
  6. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The CIA and FBI were more interested in keeping secrets from each other during the Clinton era than with keeping up with terrorism. Not that they didn't know where bin Laden was. He was in Afghanistan, playing with weapons supplied by the U.S. to fight the Russians.
    I don't think Clinton thought much about the resolutions. After all, they were UNITED NATIONS sanctions.
     
  7. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    The FBI and the CIA could almost be thrown in jail for getting too close to each other in the ludicrous pre-9/11 days of the "firewall" between them.

    Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the early 1990s Twin Towers bombers said the two agencies literally refused to be in the same room together on the case.

    And with our stupid rules of discovery, the defence teams regularly leaked and disseminated classified information which wound up in Bin Laden's hands.

    Knowing where he was did not mean we could take effective action against him prior to the phase change in our policies following 9/11.
     
  8. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    You are ignoring the relationship between Saddam and the US under the Reagan administration. First, he removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations so arms trades could begin. Then, he suited up Saddam. Third, he watched idly as Saddam gassed Iranians and Iraqis, and then tried to blame this on the Iranians. Yeah, republican presidents have always been so rough with terrorist and maniacal dictators. We don't even have to bring up Latin America.
     
  9. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    Again with the hopeless idealism. The world is NOT perfect. What would you have done? Let the Soviets dominate all those places?
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    ?

    I'm ignoring nothing. We weren't discussing the relationship between Saddam and the US under the Reagan administration. When I get out MY fat crayons and draw it up on the pretty construction paper, one is clearly POST-Gulf War I and the other PRE-Gulf War I.

    I have absolutely NO problem reconciling the fact that as long as Saddam was killing Iranians he was our "ally." Politics makes strange bedfellows. He was doing OUR dirtywork. But let's talk negligence on the part of the DIMocrats .....

    We should have handed Iran their collective asses in 1979. Then Saddam would not have been needed, nor would Iran currently be a problem. But a certain DIMocrat Prez with a spine of Jell-O did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while a bunch of jihadists invaded our embassy (US soil), and took 52 American hostage.

    The there's the fact that had Clinton not been so busy chasing his interns he would have acted the FIRST TIME Saddam refused to comply with the UN, and another situation we currently find ourselves in would have been handled before it had a chance to spiral out of control.

    So what you are basically saying is two Republican Presidents had to clean up after two DIMocrat Presidents.
     

Share This Page