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: c.hinton who wrote (234779)	7/1/2007 1:09:35 AM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine ,your statement might be more appropriate if you switch it to cover the pacific front.....ie iwo jima...6000 marines dead 17000 wounded......okinawa 7600 dead 31000 wounded....a 35% casualty rate

To: c.hinton who wrote (234779)	7/1/2007 1:24:04 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I have shown that ,in fact ,the casualties were much less than expected by the commanders... Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the coverage. Nothing, nada, zip. So claiming that you have "in fact" proved something is meaningless. The commanders in the Iraq War also have had lower casualties than many expected - and yes, that includes the whole thing to this day. Many US generals seriously expected US forces to come under chemical weapons attacks in trying to take Baghdad. Many Iraqi generals too, for that matter. But did that have any impact on the coverage? No. The losses in the Iraq war have been very light compared to the Vietnam war or to any previous US war, certainly to WWII. But they are not covered as light. They are covered as heavy. Heavy and meaningless because they are almost never presented in the context of a campaign, much less of of a war against Al Qaeda that it is very important to the US to win. Nadine face it.....your assertion could only have come about had our troops been repulced from the beach head and "Driven back into the sea" in defeat. No. You only display your ignorance with such a statement. The US government was very worried about sustaining morale on the home front in such a long war, and asked for - and got - cooperation from Hollywood and the newspapers, who consistently portrayed the war as a just and necessary struggle against fascism and downplayed the extent of the casualties. If they had reported the war like they do today, morale would have cratered. If morale had cratered, the isolationist voices in Congress that had been opposed to the war before Pearl Harbor would have regained strength and argued for a negotiated peace.