Iwo Jima

[Wilco 944]

Quote[/b] ]By Zell Miller

What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:

DAY 1

With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.

Cutie: "John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you're successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can't be sure this is the truth. What do you think?"

Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."

Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"

Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."

Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"

Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."

Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"

Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."

(A Marine sergeant watching nearby yells, "Ask her what does she want us to do; sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "

Cutie: "Pfc. Doe, what's that mountain in the background? Is that the one they say is impregnable?"

Pfc. Doe: "I don't know what that word means, ma'am, but that's Mt. Suribachi, and we're going to put a flag right up on top of it just as soon as we can. I gotta go."

Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?" (Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)

DAY 2

At 7 a.m., Cutie's morning show opens with a shot of hundreds of dead bodies bobbing in the water's edge. Others are piled on top of each other on shore. After a few seconds, one can see Marines digging graves to bury the dead.

Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think.

Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions:

1. Were the Marines properly trained?

2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives?

3. Has the president once again misled the American people?

"After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.

"But before we leave this horrible - some will say needless - scene, let us give you one more look at this Godforsaken place where these young Americans are dying. Volcanic ash, cold, wet miserable Marines just thankful to be alive. And still no flag that we had been promised on that mountain. Things have gone from bad to worse in this obviously misguided military operation. One thing is certain, there should be and there will be a high-partisan - make that bi-partisan -congressional inquiry into this."

DAY 3

Cutie: "Marines continue to be locked in a life-or-death struggle over this worthless piece of real estate in the middle of the Pacific. The word 'quagmire' is being used in the U.S. Senate, a body very familiar with quagmires. Senator Blowhard has called it 'a colossal military blunder.' And Senator Bombast maintains it was a fraudulent scheme hatched while the president was on his sixth vacation at the Little White House in Georgia.

"The recently organized Senate Squeakers Group may ask for the president to resign. They maintain that politics should not stop at the waters edge in times of war, calling that tradition an old-fashioned idea that has no place in the new century of dysfunctional government. Over forty special interest groups concurred and all issued identical news releases."

"We now turn to our politicalanalyst,James Crankville."

(James):"Cutie,the overnight poll numbers have hit this president right between the eyes. Nationwide, an overwhelming 98 percent said that if possible, they would like to see this country fight a war without a single American casualty. That is nearly the same percentage we saw three days ago when the American public said they would be in favor of going to war if we could win without firing a shot. So, you can see there is a trend developing here that spells trouble for this administration."

"That this president is going ahead with this war is just unbelievable. The witty New York Times columnist, Myscream Loud, wrote in her inimitable fashion that 'The president's policy is as crippled as his legs.' (giggle) Last week she said he had reached the point where no one will 'Fala' him. F-A-L-A, his dog, get it (more giggles)? Has that woman got a way with words! Go girl."

DAY 4

Cutie (holds up front page of the New York Times): "This morning, the New York Times had this photo on the front page. As you can see, the Marines have finally raised a flag on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The fighting is still going on but it looks like this battle is over. We tried to find Pfc. Doe, the young Marine I interviewed that terrible first day, but he was unavailable. Here is Corporal Smith though. (With girlish enthusiasm). "Well, we see that flag flying. It's pretty much over isn't it?"

Cpl. Smith: "Oh, no ma'am, it's not over by any means. We've got weeks of fighting and dying to go yet. This place is a long ways from being secured. But we did get that flag up there and it sure makes us all proud."

Cutie: "I can't tell much from the photo. Their faces are not even visible, making it impossible for us to descend upon any of their families. Corporal Smith, do you know any of the flag raisers? And do you know who ordered it put up there? Did the order come directly from the president for political reasons?"

Cpl. Smith: "All I know is that I heard some colonel put the word out that he wanted 'a flag put up there where every son of a bitch on this island could see it.' Excuse me, ma'am."

Cutie: "We know you've been in the heat of battle so,..."

Cpl. Smith: "Still am, ma'am."

Cutie: "Yes, of course, but it's all over. (Nervous giggle). Except here on Capitol Hill, of course. Corporal Smith, I wonder if you know the gender, race and ethnicity of the group that put the flag up. In other words, did that group 'look like America?' "

Corporal Smith: "Look like America? They are Americans, ma'am. United States Marines."

Cutie: "Any females?"

Cpl. Smith: "No, ma'am."

Cutie: "Any African Americans?"

Cpl. Smith: "I don't know, ma'am. But there is an Indian in Easy Company."

Cutie: "You mean Native American?"

Cpl. Smith: "Whatever, ma'am, I've got to cut out. My outfit is moving on and we've got a lot to do."

Cutie: "And we've got a lot to do here too. Spring training has started and the sun is shining brightly in Florida. But first this word from our sponsors."

Historical note: In one of the bloodiest battles of World War II, when it was said "uncommon courage was a common virtue," 6,000 Marines were killed and 18,000 wounded. Some 21,000 Japanese were killed. The island itself is still barren and only a handful of people live on it. But after it was secured by the Marines, B-29s made over 2,200 emergency landings on it, saving the lives of more than 24,000 crewmen. AP photographer Joe Rosenthal won a Pulitzer Prize for the flag-raising photo. Of the six men in the photo, three were buried in that black volcanic ash, one came out on a stretcher. Only two walked off the island.

From

[edc 0]

I don't know whether to say "lol" or to say "sad but true"...

[blackdog~ 0]

"sad but true"

Here, I'll help you.

[Billabong81 0]

"sad but true"

Here, I'll help you.

Yep...the media these days sucks. The only thing I can belive these days from them is the traffic and weather reports (and half the time the weather report is wrong as well !).

[turms 0]

If you dont like the news they report, is it the reporters fault then?

[Billabong81 0]

If you dont like the news they report, is it the reporters fault then?

I just wish it could be more accurate, that is their job after all  

EDIT: By the way, I'm not taking a political stance in this if that is what anyone is thinking. The news usually just sucks in general. Ever noticed how they love reporting bad things, yet hate reporting happy things ?

[turms 0]

If you dont like the news they report, is it the reporters fault then?

I just wish it could be more accurate, that is their job after all

EDIT: By the way, I'm not taking a political stance in this if that is what anyone is thinking. The news usually just sucks in general. Ever noticed how they love reporting bad things, yet hate reporting happy things ?

I see what you mean, but there are news, and there are "news" , whether you read the reuters,bbc,cnn, or in the other hand foxnews, daily mail etc. I get my news from trusted medias, everything else that I read are rumours, until picked up by several many newsagencies...Hope that cleared up my stance, but I still disagree with attitude of nowadays (and the articles above) that "its not our fault, its the medias fault"

[DracoPaladore 0]

 Ever noticed how they love reporting bad things, yet hate reporting happy things ?

If it bleeds, it leads. People love hearing about bad thing around the world. In some cases, it makes them think. In many, it makes them go "Glad I'm not them".

[Billabong81 0]

If it bleeds, it leads. People love hearing about bad thing around the world. In some cases, it makes them think. In many, it makes them go "Glad I'm not them".

Sad, yet true .

[EiZei 0]

If you dont like the news they report, is it the reporters fault then?

I just wish it could be more accurate, that is their job after all

EDIT: By the way, I'm not taking a political stance in this if that is what anyone is thinking. The news usually just sucks in general. Ever noticed how they love reporting bad things, yet hate reporting happy things ?

Which one is more important - parroting the official goverment line like a soviet era newspaper or exposing things that they would like you not to know?

And why this article required a separate thread? Surely the USA politics thread or Iraq thread would have sufficed?

[Wilco 944]

Politics maybe? But this is about the media, and sureley not about the Iraq War.

[Billabong81 0]

Which one is more important - parroting the official goverment line like a soviet era newspaper or exposing things that they would like you not to know?

And why this article required a separate thread? Surely the USA politics thread or Iraq thread would have sufficed?

I knew this would happen. I make a comment with nothing to do about politics, yet it gets interpreted as a political comment (even when I edited my post to specifically state it was not a politically based comment).

[Ares1978 0]

How do you walk off an island?

[FireflyPL 0]

Yea with todays media coverage we would definatelly loose IIWW. Todays media are so stupid because they are run by hippies from 70s and they dont get it at all. They cant understand values of society or government. No matter what gov does they allway say its wrong, but they have zero influence on todays Hitlers like dictators and their regimes. Thats why we would loose IIWW if we had todays media back then. Thank G-D we didnt have such media 60 years ago, and we were able to win over Nazis.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

This is not really fair, is it?

I mean, the fight for Iwo Jima would be very different with modern technology, so you can't just teleport it in the future.

There's also a MAJOR difference between WW2 and Iraq for example; In Iraq people are not very sure why they are there. In WW2 the US was attacked and the whole world was at war. It was simply fight to win or loos. This is btw also why the public more or less excepts losses in afghanistan. It's very much the same situation as with Japan. (WTC vs Pearl Harbor)

The public during WW2 was very well aware of the horrors of the war, but they knew that this was part of it. They also knew about the crimes commited by the empire of Japan (although they would only discover the true horror in europe at the end of the war).

You must of course also note that people could still remember WW1 (many sons heard the story from their father). So the entire country knew what horrers could be expected.

Todays people live in a very easy world (in the US at least) and are not used to these things anymore. They also think you can win a war with very few dead ect. They are just not used to dead soldiers anymore. We have just become very soft.

Today's media-reporters can't really be blamed. Sending a poor young girl out there who belongs in the kitchen, is not fair. I've also seen other news reporters (both male and female) reporting from fallujuk saying they were among heroes and were proud to be there. These guys represent some of the media spirit back in WW2.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Well said Frostbite, to say if WWII happened we would lose it because of todays media is complete BS and totally shows an ignorance in that the two situations are totally different and both wars came about in totally diferent ways.

[kerosene 0]

I really doubt after several years of war against a major power that launched an unprovoked attack against the U.S, that journalists would be too concerned about what was happening to the enemy soldiers.

[Ares1978 0]

There's also a MAJOR difference between WW2 and Iraq for example; In Iraq people are not very sure why they are there. In WW2 the US was attacked and the whole world was at war. It was simply fight to win or loos. This is btw also why the public more or less excepts losses in afghanistan. It's very much the same situation as with Japan. (WTC vs Pearl Harbor)

The public during WW2 was very well aware of the horrors of the war, but they knew that this was part of it. They also knew about the crimes commited by the empire of Japan (although they would only discover the true horror in europe at the end of the war).

You must of course also note that people could still remember WW1 (many sons heard the story from their father). So the entire country knew what horrers could be expected.

I very much doubt that the public knew anything about the horrors of war. After all, the Television War (Vietnam) wouldn't start until a couple decades later. What they knew of it until then, was the bodycount and the mangled soldiers when they returned home. They didn't see their boys being blown apart or bleeding on television. It seems to me that they still had a romanticised view of war. All they had was indeed the stories they had been told and I doubt that many WWI veterans were able to give a realistic picture of what it was actually like.

[FireflyPL 0]

Well said Frostbite, to say if WWII happened we would lose it because of todays media is complete BS and totally shows an ignorance in that the two situations are totally different and both wars came about in totally diferent ways.

Sorry mate but you are ignorant if you think that wars are different. War is always the same. What differes is society and technology. There is no diference between todays wars and some wars back 3000 years ago. Its always the same, its because of territory, goods or interests and wars always bring death and destruction. Tell me then what is so diferent?

[Ares1978 0]

No two wars are the same.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Well said Frostbite, to say if WWII happened we would lose it because of todays media is complete BS and totally shows an ignorance in that the two situations are totally different and both wars came about in totally diferent ways.

Sorry mate but you are ignorant if you think that wars are different. War is always the same. What differes is society and technology. There is no diference between todays wars and some wars back 3000 years ago. Its always the same, its because of territory, goods or interests and wars always bring death and destruction. Tell me then what is so diferent?

O jesus christ read what i posted, the OP posted an essay on what Iwa Jima would have been like if it attracted the same kind of media coverage that todays Iraq conflict has, To say that we would have lost the war because of the media coverage is pure fantasy.

Quote[/b] ]War is always the same. What differes is society and technology. There is no diference between todays wars and some wars back 3000 years ago.

lol contradiction ahoy.

[kerosene 0]

Well said War is always the same. What differes is society and technology. There is no diference between todays wars and some wars back 3000 years ago. Its always the same, its because of territory, goods or interests and wars always bring death and destruction. Tell me then what is so diferent?

I understand what youre saying in principle, but WW2 (or 1 for that matter) were massivley different in not just scale and technology, but in the way they impacted society to wars that occured previously, A war that requires a draft, or could be looked at as a war to maintain your way of life affects the way people look at the war.

Also you could probably expect much tighter media control in a war like that, and its already been pointed out that there are journalists and organisations that can be relied on the pump out the party line in any situation, the entire media dosent occupy one viewpoint.

I think if there was a war that involved Iwo Jima sized battles, people's view's would be very different and people wouldnt have the same kind of sympathies and concerns they have about the war in Iraq, also Iwo Jima wasnt a heavily populated area, which is one of the key issues (for me at least) about the war in Iraq.

No journalists is gonna start speaking up for the enemy in a war that could seen as a war of national survival.

[ACF 0]

This is not really fair, is it?

I mean, the fight for Iwo Jima would be very different with modern technology, so you can't just teleport it in the future.

The article teleports modern media, not military, techniques and technology back to WWII.

I’m open to enlightenment on how much technology eased the clearing of Afghan caves or Vietnamese tunnels compared to winkling Japs out of tunnels on Iwo Jima.

Quote[/b] ]In WW2 the US was attacked and the whole world was at war. It was simply fight to win or loos.

It’s probably a little OTT to suggest America was fighting for it’s own survival in WWII.  You can even dispute whether it was fighting for a great cause – the cause hadn't been great enough up to that point.  The chances of Japan conquering America were pretty negligible (not much better than those of the Afghans!) - they could have said ‘we take the hint, Japan, you can have the Pacific’.  Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans appeared to be enough of a threat to need pre-empting.

Quote[/b] ]You must of course also note that people could still remember WW1 (many sons heard the story from their father). So the entire country knew what horrers could be expected.

True, but much less applicable to America than Europe. And don't forget that many sons never had fathers to tell them the stories; nor fathers, sons. And many sons were never fathered.  I digress . . .

Quote[/b] ]This is btw also why the public more or less excepts losses in afghanistan. It's very much the same situation as with Japan. (WTC vs Pearl Harbor)

?   Didn't the media push the comparison that WTC = Pearl Harbour, Afghanistan = Japan, the national conscience deems the war against Japan as just therefore the war on Afghanistan mut be just too.

Also, a fair bit of the dirty work in Afghanistan was left to locals with anti-Taliban tendencies.

For America's WWII Pacific campaign to be considered 'very much the same as' Afghanistan, the Yank response to Pearl Harbour would have been to invade China on the basis of 'there are some Japanese there, allegedly; if not, they look a bit like the Japanese.'

Pearl Harbour was a military installation attacked by conventional military force.  The WTC wasn't.  Both were a surprise but one was much more ungentlemanly.

Pearl Harbour happened halfway through a global war (the Japanese had been at the Chinese for many a year already) and caused America to finally join in instead of selling hot dogs at the game (OK, a little harsh given that they were rather useful overall.)  Point was they had had time to think about things.

11/9 precipitated America’s overnight creation of a 'global war on terror', and expecting  everyone else to be dragged in.  Of course, economic considerations might still be there too . . .

Pearl Harbour was an act of a state against a state (many actually: Siam, Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Burma, Philippines etc. were attacked as part of the same overall strategy); 11/9 was individuals against a culture (though they'd dearly love it to escalate to or be interpreted as culture against culture)

The perpetrators of Pearl Harbour planned to sail home on big ships on an empty ocean to fight and risk their lives again another day.  The perpetrators of 11/9 planned to kill themselves.

Imperial Japan was a state that fitted nicely into the common concept of 'war', so could be punished as such without too much soul-searching.  Terrorists aren't and don't by design.  There is no convenient entity for the terrorised state to hit back at, it's basically individuals who hide amongst people who look the same.  Suicide attacks even deny democracies justice/vengeance/closure by denying them the fodder needed for their legal or military institutions.  Indeed, terrorists will often try to exploit that need for vengeance for their own ends and, whoops, guess who chased round the world for a suitable arse to spank?

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Quote[/b] ]The article teleports modern media, not military, techniques and technology back to WWII.

I’m open to enlightenment on how much technology eased the clearing of Afghan caves or Vietnamese tunnels compared to winkling Japs out of tunnels on Iwo Jima.

True, but like I wrote you can't just do this. And ever heard of the Daisy Cutter? But compare this; 3000 troops in afghanistan fighting a cave-complex and 30000 Marines with AMTANK and heavy armor support on Iwo Jima.

Quote[/b] ]It’s probably a little OTT to suggest America was fighting for it’s own survival in WWII.  You can even dispute whether it was fighting for a great cause – the cause hadn't been great enough up to that point

Remember that the US was attacked. IF they wouldn't have been attacked there is no telling what would have happened. And Hitler was so stupid to declare war on the US after this  

If I remember correctly the germand did plan to attack the US eventually. And let's face it; if they hadn't attacked Russia, they might have done that after a few years. The Brits were doing a nice job, but they would hav lost without the support from the US (no insult on the UK, they really fought hard, but you can't win em all)

About the WTC and shit like that. I agree and I didn't really mean it like that; the thing we (there are also Dutch troops) are there for a good reason. In Iraq there wasn't really a good reason if you ask me (but please don't start debate on this one). This doesn't mean I'm against the war (if I could I would go there today), but it's a fact that the US and UK were just looking for an excuse to go there.

on a sidenote; a terrorist act supported by a state is an act of war.

In the war against Japan, there was a VERY good reason. And of course this was indeed an actual country. But there was a reason and that's why they kicked their asses.

But the US wasn't thinking about going to war. They really didn't want to get into a fight. But when pearl harbor was attacked they immediately declared war on the Japan (which is a bit stupid, since Japan already decleard war on the US, although the message arrived too late and the attack was already over)

But as the starter of this thread posted; he just wanted to show us the situation if it occured when having today's media. Nothing else. So let's end the debate about a WW2-today comparison right here.

I still disagree with the fact that media would cause us to loose the war, but I do think that if a fight like Iwo Jima would occur today (for example; we find a few torrorists n00bs hiding on a pacific island), the heavy losses and media reports on TV will have a serious effect. Most likely the US woud withdraw and bomb the place into the stoneage before going back. So in that case the media is 'wrong', but I doubt if it really is that 'wrong';

Today we also sent guys out there with poor equipment (iraq). Media (or soldiers trough the media) is actually helping these guys to get better stuff, so that soldiers lives will be saved. So there are also good sides to the current media. Don't close you eyes for that.

[Akira 0]

This whole thread is ridiculous. People are blaming the media for reporting what is happening in Iraq, and questioning the governments stance on Iraq and what is occuring there. People forget that this whole war was started to get rid of WMDs in Iraq that Saddam was hording and ready to launch at a moments notice. Did you all miss the article yesterday that said the US was stopping the search with nothing to show? So what did 1000+ soldiers and 100000+ civilians die for?

In World War 2 it was very very clear what we were fighting for. To say that civilians didn't know what war was like back then is ridiculous. World War One was only about 20 years prior. There were reporters with all units constantly sending in stories and graphic depictions of what the war was like (with a healthy dose of rah rah rah). And most importantly, wounded were coming back every day, and ministers were making visits everyday. Because the US in World War 2 had a grim determination to win whatever the cost, does not mean that they were blind to the horrors. The Iraq war has more in common with the Vietnam War in terms of ideology and politics then WW2. That is why the media and the general public are skeptical.

What really pisses people off about the media is that it is a mirror for this society. If you don't like what you see, then maybe its time to change the society.

Quote[/b] ]It’s probably a little OTT to suggest America was fighting for it’s own survival in WWII. You can even dispute whether it was fighting for a great cause – the cause hadn't been great enough up to that point. The chances of Japan conquering America were pretty negligible (not much better than those of the Afghans!) - they could have said ‘we take the hint, Japan, you can have the Pacific’. Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans appeared to be enough of a threat to need pre-empting.

No the cause was not great enough at that point for the simple fact that the generation was still reeling from WW1. No more European wars for Americans was a reasonable assertation. Roosevelt wanted desperatly to fight the war, it was public opinion that needed to be swayed. When Japan hit us there was reason enough. It's still debatable if Roosevelt could have swung a European war for the people if Hitler hadn't declared war on us like a dumbass.

The chances of Japan conquering America were indeed negligable, but understand that that was a very real fear to the common people of America. A VERY real fear. At this point Japan looked invincible. I am certain had Midway been successful, some form of action against Hawai'i would have been next.

Quote[/b] ]If I remember correctly the germand did plan to attack the US eventually.

They had plans for a long-range bomber to hit NY and Washington. Might have worked if the dumbass hadn't attacked Russia.

Quote[/b] ] Didn't the media push the comparison that WTC = Pearl Harbour, Afghanistan = Japan, the national conscience deems the war against Japan as just therefore the war on Afghanistan mut be just too.

I believe it was Bush that advanced that idea the most, even using terminolgy like "Axis" that would bring to mind the "righteous fight of world war 2." The media did indeed refer to it as a sneak attack which naturally would draw comparisons to Pearl Harbor, the only other sneak attack that the US has suffered.

Quote[/b] ]Yea with todays media coverage we would definatelly loose IIWW. Todays media are so stupid because they are run by hippies from 70s and they dont get it at all. They cant understand values of society or government. No matter what gov does they allway say its wrong, but they have zero influence on todays Hitlers like dictators and their regimes. Thats why we would loose IIWW if we had todays media back then. Thank G-D we didnt have such media 60 years ago, and we were able to win over Nazis.

Thats ridiculous. I suppose you blame the media for violent crime and opposition to the Iraq War as well?

"Values"? Give me a break. What "values" exactly are we spreading on the end of a 500lb bomb pray tell? Media's purpose is to question the establishment whoever it is. It's purpose is to question the government line. Watergate and Vietnam speared the media for toeing the line so long, and showing that government might not tell the people the truth all the time (if ever). That is clearly the case in Iraq. It hardly would have been the case in WW2. For comparison look at the media coverage following 9/11. About as patriotic and "WW2-style" as you can get nowadays, which each network having their little American flag graphic waving, and decryign the animals that did such an act.

If you think media wins and loses wars than you are delusional. What wins wars is the soldiers and their knowledge that they fight for something that is percieved to be important (WW2). I guarentee that is not the case in Iraq and it certainly wasn't the case in Vietnam. Iraq also shows that it takes more than "political will" to win a war as well.

But most importantly, why the hell is everyone listening to freakin' Zell Miller. This is the idiot that said he wished he could duel Chris Mathews. The guy is completely nuts and completely not crediable.