I loved Band of Brothers, so I'm definitely on this.
Reputation: 492
I loved Band of Brothers, so I'm definitely on this.
Reputation: 31
me me me
memememem
i hope the actors are as good as the ones in genration kill and band of brothers
Reputation: 235
In all seriousness, though.
Why? Is America that ashamed of its travestied conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan that it has to big itself up by having continual war series' where they're the good guys?
Reputation: 116
It sells more.Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
....im pretty sure WW2 is the most well known war, then again i could be wrong...
Reputation: 235
It's also the war that America tends to continue making movies, TV series' and video games about.
There are not overwhelming amounts of those things focused on, say, Vietnam.
I understand that the faith in America's military and government is at its lowest, but there comes a time where you've gotta get over the fact that you ended World War 2 by dropping a nuke on a surrendering country.
Good looking out, and all that. Well done, it ended the war. It is, however, what it is.
Reputation: 201
People like to think about what they've won not what they had to give up on. So there being more WW2 themed games, movies etc; makes sense. Also the dramas about the current wars in the middle east is to make it seem like our loved ones we send over seas to fight the war are still human and they are doing the right thing and they still are being supported by their families and nation.
It's nice to feel soldiers are not just robots who just kill the enemy. Soldiers are still people and making movies and games about them puts us in their story so we can be engaged in what they went through or what they might of experienced.
She knows how to party.
Reputation: 137
this honestly looks most bodacious
Reputation: 235
If you're still looking for good in the travesty of America's military transgressions, you probably don't grasp how much of a failure it is. If one of MY loved ones went to war I'd never respect them again. Why are you up and leaving people you love to go fight for a government in an unjust conflict? Don't put these suits above us, man. That's how I feel.
People wanna see troops as heroes. Yet, when somebody like Michael Moore (Not a huge fan, gotta be real) makes a movie that shows the darker, psychotic side to some of these troops, it gets slammed. People wanna imagine troops as undeniable heroes.
Most important of all dude, if you think for a millisecond that you have a clue about the life of war...because you played Call of Duty or you watched Platoon then I don't even know what to tell you. You know nothing of war, dude. You've never seen tanks roll through your neighbourhood. You've never had to hide in a trench and hear shells going off, never knowing if you're about to die or survive, or what shape you'd survive in. Even the most educated civilian scholar does not know what war is like for a soldier.
That's one area that I feel sorry for them in. People act like they know and they don't.
Being at war is like weightlessness in space. You literally don't know what it's like until you have been there or experienced it.
Reputation: 201
I wasn't being absolute with what I said! I still understand that it's a game or movie lol. I was just trying to share my opinion cause I'm a regular person and I'm sure a lot of that war themed stuff they sale to the public is meant for regular joes. We cant all be Norrin Radd. lulz Though perhaps if we all where the world would be a better place.
Feeling like you know is better then feeling like you know nothing at all. Even if it's just mostly an illusion cooked up it still makes some people feel at ease and that's what it's for to make sure people don't ask too many questions. War is a dirty ugly thing and making it look dressed up and like a action flick eases people's worries. All you can do is guess with some things. Or like War you don't know until people who have experienced it tell you about it or till some people make a appealing story out of it.
Oh and also please don't be so condescending....it's annoying. A lot of my family serves in the Navy and the Military and the Air Force. I understand how it effects families when someone you love goes away for a long long time and you just don't know sometimes whether or not they'll come back. Great now I got emotional.
She knows how to party.
Reputation: 235
I wasn't coming at you to be disrespectful or whatever, sorry if it came off like that.
My comments were general.
que? what are you generalizing here? i dont follow.
may i ask why you wouldn't respect a family member for joining the military?
Reputation: 20
I think wars can be necessary in certain situation like for example, free the slaves...
Even if you think a war is unjust, if a soldier save a civilian's life, would you still feel that you should not respect them?
Reputation: 235
There's no generalisation, it's a fact that World War 2 is subject of continual adaptation and such. It's needless.
My personal opinion for this is because of the current failure of American military, or those in control of them. America's military and government is met with greater disdain around the world NOW than ever, so it makes sense that they'd keep pushing out material that deals with a war they helped win.
Even if it was them using the first and only nuclear attack in history on a surrendering country.
See, you'd follow things a lot more if you read posts:
"Why are you up and leaving people you love to go fight for a government in an unjust conflict? Don't put these suits above us, man. That's how I feel.".
If my brother said he was going away to fight in Iraq and possibly die, causing my mother, my father and all my other close relatives the heartache, I'd hate the man for it. If he's prepared to make my mother cry so he can go "liberate" a country that's worse off and more rudderless now than when our troops got there (Arguably), then f*ck that dude. It's not like we're being invaded.
He should be smarter than to go join the military. My opinions of joining the military are well known on here. Thankfully my brother has never been in that position, but my nephew is looking at a career in the Army and that scares the crap out of me. I'm not proud of him, at all.
No disrespect to anyone here who has family there, but that's just how I feel.
Reputation: 265
World War II stuff isn't "needless." Just because something has been portrayed in film and television countless times it doesn't mean there's a point where people should say "well, I think we just about covered all the World War II stuff, let's move on." That's like saying additional Westerns are needless, or romantic comedies are needless. There are still so many untold stories. Most of the WWII films and documentaries have focused on the European front, so something about the Pacific looks pretty interesting.
There's a number of reasons why WWII is so popular, so to confine it to just the current failure of the American military is a little shortsighted.
1) It was the biggest war in modern history, so naturally it will invite more focus.
2) It's the last great war that was fought conventionally, which to most people is more appealing than guerrilla warfare, which is seen as cowardly.
3) It's a war where the lines between good and evil and right and wrong were drawn really clearly (bad guys invading the good guys, good guys fight back)
4) Hell, it's the last official war that was declared by Congress.
Reputation: 235
I can get behind the idea, at least from the idea of research, that hearing "stories" from different and not often heard perspectives is interesting.
What I think is flawed is the idea that you're connecting the words "great", "popular" etc to war. Why? It's not good, is it? It's probably popular to everyone who wasn't in it.
My grandfather fought in World War 2, he never considered it great or anything.
All of this good guys Vs bad guys stuff is outsider nonsense, man. This isn't G.I. Joe, this is real life.
Appealing to WHO, dude? Who does this kind of "war" appeal to? People online watching these shows? No warfare is "cowardly" if you're there prepared to die, and you know it.
You want cowardly? Hiroshima. 'Nuff said. That was World War 2.
None of this comes from soldiers, it's from armchair sitters.
Reputation: 265
Exactly. And who do you think mostly watches WWII movies these days? People who weren't in it. Which is why its popular.
No, its not real life. It's the movies. It's easy to pigeon-hole WWII into good (allies) and bad (Nazis). Even if that wasn't actually the case in real life, its convenient and makes for good storytelling. Hence why WWII is popular.
It appeals to those watching the movies...and people who watch movies think that facing your enemy on the open battlefield is much more exciting than hiding in a tree and waiting for him to step on a landmine. That's why there's lots of Civil War reenactors and no Vietnam war ones. I agree that no warfare is cowardly, but I wasn't talking about that, I'm talking about public perception when it comes to wars and war movies.
Yes, armchair sitters...again they're the ones who watch the films, they're the ones who the films are targeted towards, and hence this is why WWII is a more popular war for the media.
TV shows arent made by the government or military? its a bunch of people that think WW2 is cool and make a show about it...
well, to me personally, when your old enough to join the military your an adult and make your own decisions. Even if I dont agree wiht it I still respect them. and you cant live your life worrying abouthow its going to affect your parents..or you wouldn't get much done. and i dont think just cuz your a troop you agree with the wars, sometimes you just get stuck in a bullshit war when you want to join the military...
Reputation: 235
Pala, it seems we don't really disagree, we just have different stuff to say.
So that's what that is, really.
Exactly, which is why it's dumb. I'm going to give you a lengthy answer because the last time I dealt with this, people got offended and I wanna make sure people know I'm not trying to disrespect anyone's family out there. If you have family out there and they're not total nutjobs, I hope they come home to you as safe as can be. This is NOT a personal thing.
It's not a matter of living my life worrying about that. I love my mother AND my father, to death. My mother isn't standing there super proud that her grandson, my nephew, is going to join the military. You know what I'm saying? After all this nonsense in the modern world, people have really started to wake up to the fact that the military isn't all it's meant to be.
Your last sentence is what I'm talking about, though. If you don't wanna get caught up in a war you don't believe in, don't SIGN UP TO THE DAMN MILITARY.
I'm not trying to get these people to kick science off with me, it's a simple premise. You have to believe and accept that if you wanna be in the military...you serve those in power. Do not ever convince yourself that, in 2010, this is about defending your country. Don't ever come at me and expect ME to respect or support "the troops" because they are "defending our country.".
They're not, at all.
"We sleep at night because of them.", like...are people serious with that? I sleep at night because I'm from England and there isn't a country on Earth that could, or will, successfully invade this place. Even IF they could. Troops being over in Iraq makes me feel no safer.
You COULD argue that since they retaliated, I feel more at risk.
Regardless, that's why I have no respect for people who join the military. Well, let me rephrase that. I have no respect for their decision to join the military. No reason I've ever heard is good enough. That includes the: "Oh yeah I need money for college.".
I'm going to be real like Doug Stanhope said: "There are other ways to get money; spin around the brass pole, give someone head. There are way better options.".
It was a joke, but on a serious note: who'd rather take a liquid shot in the mouth from the end of a penis and walk away with money and some tarnished dignity, or a lead shot in the head from the end of a rifle and not walk away at all?
I know I'm liking the first option better. Nobody can even hate on me for that, because if you'd say any different, I'm gonna say you're a liar.
id honestly rather do the second, beleive me or not, its up to you...im more of a ole time, id die before i stoop to such a level i dont ever want to see myself at.
are you saying we need to get rid of the militaries?
cuz you do need people who want to join the military for those occasions that some ****** does decide to invade...
Reputation: 265
I think what Norrin is getting at is that invading a little God-forsaken desert country in the Middle East doesn't do a whole lot to provide freedom or protection for your own country.
Reputation: 235
Exactly.
No offense meant, V-Op, but that's your problem. How did you get anything from my post that even warranted the question: Are you saying we need to abolish the military?
Reputation: 47
This is wrong.
Reputation: 235
I'm listening.
They had all but surrendered and only wanted to no longer be occupied. That's the long and short of it. The war was all but over.
Still, all ears.
Reputation: 265
It's incorrect to say that the US dropped the bomb on a surrendering country. We dropped the bomb on Japan because they refused to unconditionally surrender. It's a subtle difference, but an important one nonetheless.
The argument for the atomic bomb is basically that it saved a lot of Japanese and American lives in the long run. If you look at the fierce resistance the Japanese offered up at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, a full land invasion of the home islands would have resulted in massive casualties on both sides. Additionally, many Japanese cities including Tokyo had been bombed back to the stone age and there was a full naval blockade. Even in these dire circumstances Japan still refused to surrender. From this perspective, it might have been reasonable to conclude that only an atomic bomb would have adequately forced a surrender.
As for arguments against the dropping of the bombs, you could say that part of it was a political move to force Japanese surrender to the Americans before the Russians invaded Japan. Critics also say a "demonstration" of the bomb in Japan without killing anyone would have sufficied, or that the US should have at least dropped the bomb on military targets instead of just killing civilians.
Was it wrong to force an unconditional surrender on Japan by dropping the bomb? Should we have settled for less? I don't know, maybe, but if you look at how prosperous Japan is now and what American occupation did for Japan post-WWII, its hard to argue with the results. Now if we could emulate that great clean-up job in Iraq...
Posting Permissions
