On a more positive note...

[dan-cat]

No I've been watching American politicians come on attempting to justify their actions, now are you going to answer my questions ?

Not before you withdraw your "brainwashed" comment. Like I said, I won't enter a poisoned discussion.

 

[Rich]

Not before you withdraw your "brainwashed" comment. Like I said, I won't enter a poisoned discussion.

So you won't accept the fact that your government is brainwashing, or even, in your case then since I have to quantify the statement, attempting too ?

 

[Rich]

I've known for years that the famous image everyone thinks of was actually the second time a flag was raised that day. According to these two sites (the only two I've had time to check) the second flag raising wasn't done for a photo op but to raise a larger flag that could be seen more easily. I wasn't personally there so I can't really comment on that, other than to listen to the eyewitness accounts from those that were there.

Would the memorial for Iwo Jima be any more valid to you if they had used the image from the first raising, or would the sight of Americans raising the American flag after a hard fought battle still be propaganda to you?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/iwoflag.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

Raising the flag over conquered soil for propaganda purposes is always suspect to say the least. Using it as a fitting memorial for all those who fell in battle all over the world is unsuitable at best and an insult at worst.

 

[MrsGorilla]

Raising the flag over conquered soil for propaganda purposes is always suspect to say the least. Using it as a fitting memorial for all those who fell in battle all over the world is unsuitable at best and an insult at worst.

So which part is distasteful to you? The fact that they raised the American flag over conquered soil, or the fact that it has, in your eyes, become propaganda? I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint here.

 

[dan-cat]

So you won't accept the fact that your government is brainwashing, or even, in your case then since I have to quantify the statement, attempting too ?

Rich, this is at least the fourth time I've had to explain this to you. It's going to be the last because you're obviously not making a sincere attempt to understand it and you're starting to not make much sense.

Here is your quote:

If you ,Kenny and all those others can't see that the article and even the statue in question is an insult to those who lost their lives in the true fight for freedom then there is no hope and one can freely come to the the conclusion that as a nation you're brainwashed and know nothing about the true events of history other than that fed by the state.

Read it. It says that if you don't agree with my point of view regarding the article, then an entire "nation", whoever that may be, is "brainwashed". You have basically poisoned the well by saying any American who disagrees with me is part of a "nation" that is "brainwashed". Thus dismissing the integrity of any American opponent. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? Answer the question directly. Yes or no.

 

[Rich]

So which part is distasteful to you? The fact that they raised the American flag over conquered soil, or the fact that it has, in your eyes, become propaganda? I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint here.

Why single out Iwo Jima as a fitting tribute, do none of the other battles matter, does the contribution of the USAF not matter?
Because it seems that in singling out the flag raising over Iwo Jima as memorial all the other battles and losses pale into insignificance and thus aren't worthy of any merit or remembrance

 

[Kraj]

Why single out Iwo Jima as a fitting tribute, do none of the other battles matter, does the contribution of the USAF not matter?
Because it seems that in singling out the flag raising over Iwo Jima as memorial all the other battles and losses pale into insignificance and thus aren't worthy of any merit or remembrance

Please Rich (for the love of God), please do not interpret this as an attack because I mean this in the most pragmatic of tones: I think you're missing the point. The monument is not intended to single out Iwo Jima as the only significant battle, the monument uses an image which represents the struggle, sacrifice, and ultimate victory of United States soldiers in WWII. The fact that it happened to be a real image from a particular battle is incidental; it doesn't mean the other battles are insignificant.

I would also point out that there is, in fact, a memorial the encompasses a much greater breadth of WWII. http://www.wwiimemorial.com/ One could argue, though, that this memorial is beautiful but lacks the human element so powerfully conveyed by the Iwo Jima statue. One doesn't have more value than the other, they're just different.

 

[Rich]

Rich, this is at least the fourth time I've had to explain this to you. It's going to be the last because you're obviously not making a sincere attempt to understand it and you're starting to not make much sense.

Here is your quote:



Read it. It says that if you don't agree with my point of view regarding the article, then an entire "nation", whoever that may be, is "brainwashed". You have basically poisoned the well by saying any American who disagrees with me is part of a "nation" that is "brainwashed". Thus dismissing the integrity of any American opponent. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? Answer the question directly. Yes or no.

I did not say "then an entire nation" I said "as a nation", the two statements are entirely different.
That means in my view your state is attempting to brainwash you as a nation, as to whether it's succeeding is certainly subjective.
If you're not prepared to state your view on the subject then one can of course draw ones own conclusions.
Kinda odd though that the only one here who's incensed by the seeming denegration of what should be a fitting tribute to all is a Brit.
You carry on nitpicking over semantics if you wish Dan

 

[Rich]

Please Rich (for the love of God), please do not interpret this as an attack because I mean this in the most pragmatic of tones: I think you're missing the point. The monument is not intended to single out Iwo Jima as the only significant battle, the monument uses an image which represents the struggle, sacrifice, and ultimate victory of United States soldiers in WWII. The fact that it happened to be a real image from a particular battle is incidental; it doesn't mean the other battles are insignificant.

I would also point out that there is, in fact, a memorial the encompasses a much greater breadth of WWII. http://www.wwiimemorial.com/ One could argue, though, that this memorial is beautiful but lacks the human element so powerfully conveyed by the Iwo Jima statue. One doesn't have more value than the other, they're just different.

I'm curious, who actually decided that the Iwo image would be a fiting tribute.
I understand what you're saying, I just find it hard to understand why an actual image was necessary.
But then I find pictures of the dead on gravestones rather macabre, it's almost as if family members can't remember their loved ones without a picture to remind them.

 

[MrsGorilla]

Why single out Iwo Jima as a fitting tribute, do none of the other battles matter, does the contribution of the USAF not matter?
Because it seems that in singling out the flag raising over Iwo Jima as memorial all the other battles and losses pale into insignificance and thus aren't worthy of any merit or remembrance

I see your point, but in my opinion you're reading too much into it. First of all, of course the contribution of the USAF matters, as well as the Army and Navy. But the Iwo Jima Memorial is a USMC memorial and they probably chose that picture because Iwo Jima was a battle fought by Marine Divisions and the picture, aside from the one Navy hospital corpsman, was entirely of Marines raising the flag. Here is the official National Park Service webpage for the Iwo Jima Memorial:

http://www.nps.gov/gwmp/usmc.htm

Second, I understand that it might seem to you that singling the flag raising out puts more importance on that battle than on any of the others, but I can assure you that I've never met anyone who feels that the battle at Iwo Jima was any more or less important than any other battle of WWII. We can't possibly have a war memorial for every battle that took place and typically, we don't memorialize individual battles but that particular memorial is the USMC's and that is the image they chose for their own memorial to honor fallen Marines.

Edit: Kraj said it much better than I did...

 

[Rich]

Thanks Cindy, now I understand, I wonder why it took a woman to point out that the memorial was intended for the marine corps

 

[Kraj]

I'm curious, who actually decided that the Iwo image would be a fiting tribute.

I'm not positive. My best guess is that the photo was a Pulitzer Prize winner and had become the iconic image of the war. I think you have a point about the propoganda element but that was a part of how society handled war at that time, on both sides of the conflict. There was no negative connotation associated with propoganda at the time, so I doubt many people considered it inappropriate.

I understand what you're saying, I just find it hard to understand why an actual image was necessary.

At this point I'm completely speculating, but I think it was for the reasons I gave above. It wasn't neccessary, it's just that the image was so iconic by the time the memorial was commissioned.

I also must correct an earlier statement. The memorial is not dedicated to all the soldiers of WWII but rather to all members of the Marine Corps throughout all U.S. wars. EDIT: Whoops. Cindy beat me to the punch!

Edit: Kraj said it much better than I did...

No, I didn't.

 

[dan-cat]

That means in my view your state is attempting to brainwash you as a nation, as to whether it's succeeding is certainly subjective.

No it doesn't- it means if you don't agree with my point of view then America as a nation had been brainwashed. Your words : "as a nation you're brainwashed". There is no "attempting" about it. Why don't you fess up to what you have said?

You carry on nitpicking over semantics if you wish Dan

I nitpick over semantics to prevent you from re-defining your terms to suit.

 

[fuzzygeek]

Thanks Cindy, now I understand, I wonder why it took a woman to point out that the memorial was intended for the marine corps

Woman also serve in the Marines!

 

[Rich]

No it doesn't- it means if you don't agree with my point of view then America as a nation had been brainwashed. Your words : "as a nation you're brainwashed". There is no "attempting" about it. Why don't you fess up to what you have said?



I nitpick over semantics to prevent you from re-defining your terms to suit.

I've already settled the matter with a female member of the forum in an honourable manner satisfactory to both parties, looks like you missed the bus
However I do have issues concerning the link to the memorial in Washington that Kraj posted.

 

[fuzzygeek]

And John Wayne never served in the military!

 

[Rich]

Woman also serve in the Marines!

I'm sure they do a fine job too

 

[Rich]

And John Wayne never served in the military!

UH ? but according to Hollywood he and Mitchem won WW11?

 

[fuzzygeek]

UH ? but according to Hollywood he and Mitchem won WW11?

Consider the source

 

[fuzzygeek]

I doubt if King Kong, if he existed, would ice skate.(per Hollywood)