88Comrade2000 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 How long do we commemorate important dates in WW2? Why ask? Well, we don't seem to commemorate other important dates in other wars like we do WW2. All other wars just get recognition on Memorial or Veterans Days. We are friends with our WW2 enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think we will be noting the 100, 150 and 200 aniversaries of famous WWII battles. WWII was the grand-daddy of all wars. It's right we take note of it on major milestones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think WWII is pretty much the most clear-cut war of good v. evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think WWII is pretty much the most clear-cut war of good v. evil.True. Given the sheer size of D-Day and the number of men and amount of planning that went into it says to me that it will be remembered every year for a very long time, as it should be.D-Day was also such a turning point in the war it is appropriate that it be recognized every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think WWII is pretty much the most clear-cut war of good v. evil. How about the War on Terror ? :cool2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 D-Day was so enormous an operation that required international teamwork on a scale unseen before or since. We also don't really commemorate most important dates in WWII, just Pearl Harbor and D-Day. Though I'm sure other countries have their special dates as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 And most important of all is the number of US lives lost, a series of battles with losses only eclipsed by the Civil War. Total number of deaths for WWII is widely believed to be around 56 million :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_RedskinsFan Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 How long do we commemorate important dates in WW2? Forever IMO, why would we need to stop? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 How about the War on Terror ? :cool2: not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 And most important of all is the number of US lives lost, a series of battles with losses only eclipsed by the Civil War. Total number of deaths for WWII is widely believed to be around 56 million :doh: I visited Normandy january of 2008, the U.S. cemetary at Omaha is a very humbling experience. It feels like you're simply walking forever amongst the rows of grave markers. For those who have never gone, it's a 2 hour train ride north from Paris. Take the Battlebus Tour out of the town Bayeux, simply amazing. The town of Bayeux is also something to behold. It's a fascinating town with a lot of French countryside charm. Battlebus tour is the best tour offered in the area, but I suggest you go during the spring or summer since the museums are seasonal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 not even close. obviously, not in terms of lives lost, or size of war, etc.....but in terms of the extremity of "evil" faced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 obviously, not in terms of lives lost, or size of war, etc.....but in terms of the extremity of "evil" facedStill no. The evil faced in Europe was systematic, wide-spread, and state-organized.Terrorism is sporadic, relatively narrow in scope, and mostly unorganized. I don't think Nazi Germany can be compared to international terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Still no. The evil faced in Europe was systematic, wide-spread, and state-organized.Terrorism is sporadic, relatively narrow in scope, and mostly unorganized. I don't think Nazi Germany can be compared to international terrorism. Terrorism, however, is more random in it's killings and human targets, and would not hesitate to strike anyone at all, just to prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 obviously, not in terms of lives lost, or size of war, etc.....but in terms of the extremity of "evil" faced not even close. War on terror is questionable, especially in its execution. WWII was clearcut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 At the very least until the last veteran passes away, and that's probably not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I visited Normandy january of 2008, the U.S. cemetary at Omaha is a very humbling experience. It feels like you're simply walking forever amongst the rows of grave markers. For those who have never gone, it's a 2 hour train ride north from Paris. Take the Battlebus Tour out of the town Bayeux, simply amazing. The town of Bayeux is also something to behold. It's a fascinating town with a lot of French countryside charm. Battlebus tour is the best tour offered in the area, but I suggest you go during the spring or summer since the museums are seasonal. I went there with my father, who is a WW2 veteran...it was pretty overwhelming for him because he had not been back since being in the war. It was pretty overwhelming for me to see wave after wave of grave markers as well as to stand in the middle of so much history that I knew my father took part in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think WWII is pretty much the most clear-cut war of good v. evil. As I told my wife over dinner tonite, D-Day is the reason we are sitting here eating pizza and speaking English. Obviously an exaggeration, but had the free world not banded together to win that war, the state of affairs would be very different now. WWII was the most pivotal series of events humanity has seen in centuries, possibly ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 not even close. War on terror is questionable, especially in its execution. WWII was clearcut. How is the "War on Terror" (despite its execution) questionable? Just curious. Leave Iraq out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Never forget. I golfed w/a great friend of mine yesterday who was in DC this past week and he told me about meeting a couple 90 year old Tuskegee Air Men. Yeah, true heroes and the definition of why this country is so freaking exceptional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 How is the "War on Terror" (despite its execution) questionable? Just curious. Leave Iraq out. Well, the war is vague. Its like if I were to declare a "War on Evil". Execution is everything. You can't take a catch phrase ('cause really, that's what the "War on Terror" is, a catch phrase) and use that for the distinguishing of good and evil. What are we doing, who are we fighting? Why are we fighting them, why are they fighting us? Those questions are all important in the distinction of good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Well, the war is vague. Its like if I were to declare a "War on Evil". Execution is everything. You can't take a catch phrase ('cause really, that's what the "War on Terror" is, a catch phrase) and use that for the distinguishing of good and evil. What are we doing, who are we fighting? Why are we fighting them, why are they fighting us? Those questions are all important in the distinction of good and evil. I hear what you're saying. But, I think it's not easy to define it. Involving Pakistan, going after Afghanistan, sanctions against Iran/N Korea are all part of it. I thought, actually, GW did outline who they were, and took a lot of heat for it. The "Axis of Evil". Might've just been a catch phrase, but he at least gave you specifics for it. And it scared a lot of countries when he said it. One of the few things I respect about his admin. That being said, I almost parallel 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. How is it different? Attacks on unsuspecting victims, in a war we didn't even know we were in (at least to that capacity, though it could be argued in both situations). Regardless, I suppose another thread should be started to discuss this topic. This thread is about explaining to the OP why WWII dates should still (or not) be celebrated (which I think they should). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanleys Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 WWII was so much more clear cut because quality guys like Joe Stalin were on the side of "good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 WWII was so much more clear cut because quality guys like Joe Stalin were on the side of "good". :yes: If we still had the same level of nationalist pride, manifest destiny, accepted bigotry (Japanese internment, black soldiers), and controlled media coverage today as we did during WWII, I'm sure we would see the war on terrorism as a clear cut battle of good vs. evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 WWII was so much more clear cut because quality guys like Joe Stalin were on the side of "good". Ironic isn't it? ...but I'll leave the morals of war and wholesale destruction of cities, as well as public perceptions to another thread.:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think that Poker is right in terms of the War on Terror being ambiguos and open ended and not a "war" in the sense that most of us understand what "war" is. WWII had armies, an enemy, a way to win, and several groups to rescue from attrocity. It changed the nature of the United States from a large country to a superpower and really moved our economy into a different stratosphere... for a couple of decades. It also helped define us around the world as the liberators, the good guys, and the standard that most wanted to live up to. The end of WWII began a golden age for America that although it had its ebbs and flows probably lasted 20 years and maybe longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.