Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (234735)	6/30/2007 3:30:58 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So you think the coverage of June 1944 never used the term "D-Day"? I didn't say that NPR never used the term "Arrowhead Ripper". Are you now saying that NPR never used the term "Arrowhead Ripper"? Do you realize that you just slipped from headlines to "coverage"? I think you need to spend a little extra effort keeping your story straight. jttmab

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (234735)	6/30/2007 4:01:01 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

If they had covered that operation like they cover Iraq, they would have spent the entire front page talking about nothing but the horrendous casualties. FDR would have been forced to negotiate a peace. We could still be trying to contain Nazi Germany today. If you're one of the people that back in Mar 2001 who correctly predicted what was going to happen in Iraq, I'll pay attention to your alternate history of what would have happened in WWII. Did you nail it Nadine. No WMDs? No nuclear weapons program? No flowers? No being greeted as liberators? No SCUD missiles? Is that what you predicted? jttmab

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (234735)	6/30/2007 4:36:28 PM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine ...Again back up your statement please.......the casualty figures are low enough to cast serious doubt on your statement. D- Day casualties ....2500 dead out of 156,000 soldiers involved. ps wounderd was estimated at 7500. ddaymuseum.co.uk

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (234735)	6/30/2007 6:00:20 PM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

re d day casualties.....it would seem ,Nadine,that you are absolutely wrong in your assertion . ""Rev. Wisewell: No: the 35 we treated were a flea-bite. We weren’t really stretched until, probably, July 8, when Caen was taken. That was 466 British casualties on the day, and 40 Germans. The casualty numbers prognosticated was completely hay-wire—happily—from the point of view of the Division. [Mr. Wisewell referred to a file where casualty predictions were set out as 2000 per day for the divisional front on the first two days; 1000 per day for the next two days; and 400 per day thereafter. This also contained details of the scale of equipment the personnel of an ADS would normally carry]............ warchronicle.com