Posted on 04/28/2004 10:17:22 PM PDT by BillF
Because of bad planning by American officers and mistakes by the Royal Navy, over 900 American troops were killed during 'Operation Tiger'. 'Tiger' was a practice exercise for D-Day held at Slapton Sands, England. In the early A.M. of April 28 1944, 7 LSTs packed with troops from the U.S. VII corps and escorted by only one outdated Corvette, were attacked by German E-Boats. By the time the shooting had stopped the E-Boats had retired without loss and 946 GIs were dead (four times as many than were killed on Utah beach in the real invasion!!) The incident was hushed up until only recently because of fears that if the truth became known, Anglo-American relations would be damaged. [emphasis added]
How would today's media react to that story if the President was a Republican when the tragedy occurred? And how would today's Democrats react?
As Americans and British practiced amphibious landings for the invasion of Normandy scheduled for 5 weeks later, German torpedo boats happened upon the American landing crafts. German forces suffered no losses, but 946 Americans were dead.
May God bless all of those American troops who perished that day, as well as those who gave "the last full measure of devotion" from the bridge at Concord in 1775 to the edge of Falija in 2004. Each and every fallen American was someone's son, father, brother, daughter, sister, or mother. Each death was a grievous loss.
That said, the 720 some American dead in Iraq is much lower than I expected. Liberating 25 million people, ousting Saddam, taking over a country the size of California, and giving its people a chance for democracy is an achievement of momentous significance.
The 946 Americans, who died at the hands of the Nazis 60 years ago today, helped lay the foundation for the successful Normandy invasion 5 weeks later.
About 2000 Americans died on June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy invasion (includes dead at Utah beach, the other beaches and paratroopers who died further inland). Then again, maybe the libs would not call it a quagmire until the Battle of the Bulge 6 1/2 months later?
The press has failed miserably in its duty to put current events in historical perspective.
When the Iraq invasion was paused due to a sandstorm, the press screamed quagmire. The media said that a U.S. armored column advance towards Baghdad was bogged down, despite the fact that it was as fast, if not faster, than George Patton's stunningly fast WWII tank advances.
And the tragic deaths of over 700 brave Americans, who laid down their lives for our country in Iraqi service, is taken as evidence of policy failure, despite the fact that the deaths are historically low in comparison to any remotely comparable war.
Also, about 6500 Americans drown every year. Our country is paying a heavier price for people's desire to swim and boat than the price we pay, in terms of deaths, for liberating Iraq from a WMD-loving mass murderer.
The numbers are irrelevant. They complain because they are AntiBush/AntiAmerican socialists. Don't bother trying to convince the leaders of the movement with "facts".
It is much better to reveal the socialist backers of the movement and expose the French/German/Russian business deals with Iraq and the UN Oil For Food BILLION dollar scandal.
Convince the Red Dupes soccer moms who eat up the socialist agitprop. Tell them to "question" (the antiwar) authority.
My recollection could be faulty, but I don't remember anywhere near the amount of anti-war hysteria in the media when klintoon bombed Kosovo.
Hmmmm...wonder why.
I never saw any protest rally posters in the book/record stores for Clinton's wars. The proPalestinian war stance (including Rachel Corrie's defense of a terrorist) shows that they aren't "antiWar".
There may have been protests (besides just some Blogging) but the media never reported on ANY of it. Some conservatives asked why was the US engaging in police activity and meals on wheels programs but they never accused the troops of committing attrocities. There was some questioning of why terrorist organizations like the KLA were being reclassified so that the US could provide them aid/assistance. There was some questioning of what made Kosovo an "American" war (but some of those voices are the same that question ANY US involvement in a country not responsible for an attack on the US; sometimes fighting a war abroad keeps us from having to fight a war on our homeland).
Those on the left who say that we have no reason to be in Iraq (even with the resolution violations) claim that we "were not attacked by Iraq". When was this the case in Kosovo?
The Communists and true Commie sympathizers did not want us in Kosovo because our enemy was Milosovich, an anti-American Coummunist dictator. Thus, Ramsey Clark was against Kosovo and defended Milosovich.
The anti-Kosovo protests never got traction in the media because a Dem was president. Without media support and without the hard left Dems showing up to support them, the anti-Kosovo pro-Milosovich protestors were left in obscurity.
With the Iraq war, the media did whatever it could to support the protestors. The Washington Post ran puff pieces on various anti-war leaders. Also, because W is GOP, hard left Dems were willing to join with the Commie "anti-war" leaders. Additionally, the pro-Pali pro-terrorist Islamofacists joined with the Commies on Iraq. The Islamofacists sat out the Kosovo protests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.