A Flyboy‘s Story: George Bush in World War II

[Deleted member 585]

George Bush‘s experience in 1944 notwithstanding, what do you think of the timing of this broadcast?

I think that the following points may form a significant portion of the intent behind the presentation:

• (Most apparently), a means to propagate support of G.W. Bush‘s "War On Terrorism"
• A resultant means to boost the currently weak American economy and bolster American foreign policy by increasing cash-flow through the military-industrial complex... through increased public and consequent corporate support
• Remind the public that casualties are intrinsic to warfare, and that those which occurred in Iraq since mission commencement are not without purpose
• A joint U.S. Government / CNN initiative to rectify the negative account G.W. Bush‘s military service by illuminating the father‘s heroism

The preceding are simply musings, and do not imply my suspicion of a nefariously manipulative plot, however the media are used daily to shape our interpretation of events.

For the record, I believe in ceasing terrorist activity by force. In this instance, it is against Islamic Extremist Movements responsible for murdering innocent American, Canadian, and European citizens. Of course, in my reveries, I demand a minimum of collateral casualties; absolute verity in identifying responsible parties; and swift resolution.

To leap from a height of over 1,300 feet to escape from a collapsing office tower, is an absurd notion. The atrocity exceeds my comprehension.

I digress, as it‘s not my intent to perpetuate a round of speculation and conjecture over the September 11th terrorist attack against the U.S.

As I mentioned above, aside from George Bush‘s WWII experience, what are your thoughts with reference to this broadcast and its intent?

Let‘s not let this post become a simple U.S. bash-fest, okay?

Cheers.

 

[nULL]

you say you believe in "ceasing terrorist activity by force." while a typical sentiment, you have to ask yourself "what is a terrorist"? it would be easy to define them as religous extremists, but obviously, that‘s not good enough, or you could consider those ultra-orthodox jews terrorists, or those scary catholic families a threat to national security. by it‘s own definition in the US code (or army manuals), the united states is a terrorist state.


"...an act of terrorism, means any activity dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State..."

"...and that appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion....or by assassination or kidnapping"


the last statement rings especially true, i find. look at what was done to nicaragua in the 1980‘s...don‘t look at it as "look what the united states did", try looking at it as "look what was done by this group".


"To leap from a height of over 1,300 feet to escape from a collapsing office tower, is an absurd notion"

do you think being blown apart by a US cruise missile accidentally targetting an asprin factory in the Sudan is any less repulsive?

the US is a superpower, and should take actions that are in it‘s self interest - most countries would. (heck, it‘s for that reason we need the UN). what i find disgusting however, is how the media in the united states doesn‘t inform the populace about the evils that their coutnry has done, thus allowing them to take on a holier-than-thou attitude, a feeling that they are the international good guys. i‘d say a good chunk of canadians know about what the airborne regiment did - **** , i learned it in grade 11. how many americans do you think know about the CIA planting car bombs outside mosques? (beirut, 1985)

 

[Deleted member 585]

nULL, I don‘t condone the destruction of the Al-Shifa Pharmaceuticals plant in North Khartoum. The "clandestine intelligence" alleged that chemical weapons were being manufactured onsite... and it was a grossly misleading lie.

I also don‘t see the link between ultra-orthodox jews and scary catholic families to terrorist activity, but I do understand the statement‘s facetious roots. If you intend to remind us of the irrationality of lapsing into a sort of racial profiling in identifying "the enemy", I agree. However, my statement referred clearly to "Islamic Extremist Movements responsible for murdering innocent American, Canadian, and European citizens.", which relates the topic of this post to the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the political spin surrounding it.

I do share your disaffection for the American media, but not because it fails to tell the "truth"... but because it is no longer a "free press" as it once was. It seems to have become more of a political propaganda mechanism than a function of informing people of fact. I doubt that the CIA would release details of its operations -- secret operations are likely to be as such in part due to our inability to accept their inherent breaches of morality and lawfulness.

In this thread, the absence of my disapproval of destructive American foreign policy doesn‘t imply my consent. The frequency and intensity of American foreign policy administration lends itself to equally frequent and intense scrutiny -- which I will again attempt to avoid in this thread. I do appreciate your insight nonetheless, nULL.

Regardless of government sanctioned terrorism, what are your thoughts on the intent of broadcasting the Flyboy‘s Story?

Cheers.

 

[Deleted member 585]

Sherwood, although you didn‘t offer your opinion about the (possible) intent behind the (re)broadcast, I appreciate your input.

I will be glad to respond to the flyboy story....since I know that you did your homework before posting, when was the program first aired? If you don‘t know please check out the following link and ask...I did. http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

Regardless of when it was first aired or how many times it will air, what do you think is the relevant catalyst in airing it now? I intend to challenge myself, and you, my Army.ca acquaintances to think beyond what is apparent. Is my speculation baseless? I won‘t know until we address the question.

By the way, I believe that your posting is flawed...CNN (it is trash and I never watch it) is hardly a mouthpiece of the Government...it doesn‘t receive any public funds like the CBC, BBC, or other government owned media outlets.

With respect, I think it is naive to assert that a news medium is free from bias or political alignment simply because it is not publicly funded. Agendas shift just as easily due to affiliations and patronage behind the scenes.

I really find the whole post rather offensive...why not have a post discussing Canadian Politician‘s (Like Chretien?) military service or the lack there of? Please I want to know since I could not find any....Why are some Canadians so facinated with the US....don‘t worry be happy! Besides you can‘t do anything about it anyway!

No offence meant. About "rectifying the negative account of G.W. Bush‘s service"... that negative account was given by an American news medium. This was simply a marginal point in my speculation. Also, Chretien has nothing to do with my question, unless we include commentary on the ‘People‘s Choke-Hold‘.

Would it be fair to say that service in the CDN reserve was less than honorable vs regular force service? I served in the national guard not to avoid service as you implied as others have done in your post, but as a way to serve my nation. I am proud of my service and make no apology for it.

All military service is valuable, isn‘t it?

Your post only serves to perpetuate stereotypes of the USA ...and my opinion of some Canadians.

LOL. Alright. Either way, ad hominem argument is unproductive and only pollutes our discussion. I‘d prefer to examine the question. Olive branch, sir?

Phrased differently, "Do you think that spotlighting George Bush‘s WWII experiences would affect any of the conditions I listed?"

Peace.

P.S. I mentioned "destructive American foreign policy" in an earlier post. This implies the existence of a "constructive American foreign policy".

(Edited fer spalling)

 

[muskrat89]

Regarding CNN, I can say this with all honesty - amongst the right wing circles that I usually travel in, CNN is regarded as "anti-Bush Government", if anything... now, FoxNews might be regarded as "pro-Bush govt". Its funny... when I was in New Brunswick, a lot of my Canadian friends and relatives watched the US channels, because they didn‘t trust CBC. A lot of my US friends and relatives watched CBC, so they could get some "honest news".. go figure

 

[Deleted member 585]

Jean Chretien and Paul Martin never served.

According to the National Library of Canada and National Archives of Canada, the following seven Canadian Prime Ministers served in the military or "took up arms". (Numbers in brackets denote the order in which each man occupied the office of Prime Minister.)

• Sir John Alexander MacDonald (1st):
  He "shouldered a musket" during the Rebellion of 1837
  .
• Alexander Mackenzie (2nd):
  (Joined the militia during The Fenian Raids (1841-1871))
  1866 - 1874 Major, 27th Lambton Volunteer Infantry
  .
• Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott (4th):
  (Joined the militia during The Fenian Raids (1841-1871))
  1862 - 1884 Raised and commanded the Argenteuil Rangers
  .
• Sir Mackenzie Bowell (6th):
  (Joined the militia during The Fenian Raids (1841-1871))
  1858 - 1865 Ensign, Belleville Rifle Company
  1867 - 1872 Major, 49th Hastings Battalion
  .
• Sir Wilfred Laurier (8th):
  (Joined the militia during The Fenian Raids (1841-1871))
  1869 - 1878 Ensign, Arthabaskaville Infantry
  .
• John George Diefenbaker (18th):
  (Veteran of the First World War)
  1916 - 1917 Lieutenant, 105th Saskatoon Fusiliers
  .
• Lester Bowles Pearson (19th):
  (Veteran of the First World War)
  1914 - 1918 Lieutenant, Canadian Army Medical Corps and Flying Officer, Royal Flying Corps

As I knew little about it, I found a description of The Fenian Raids, which is found at:
http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/chrono/1774fenian_e.html

It is as follows:

"Canada organized permanent militia units and repelled raids by the American-based Fenian Brotherhood.

In 1855, Canada passed a Militia Act creating cavalry, infantry, and artillery units, made up of volunteer, part-time soldiers. Strained Anglo-American relations during the American Civil War (1861-65) led Britain to send 11,000 troops to protect its North American colonies.

Following the Civil War, the Fenian Brotherhood, largely composed of Irish-American veterans, sought to achieve Ireland's independence from Britain by capturing Canada as a hostage. Between 1866 and 1871, they raided Canadian territory from New Brunswick to Manitoba. During the largest raid, in June 1866 along the Niagara frontier, the Fenians defeated a small Canadian force at Ridgeway. The Fenians returned to the United States before Canadian and British reinforcements arrived. Every other Fenian raid ended in failure, and the movement collapsed after 1871."

Sherwood, I hope this answers your question. Had I not been so interested in the answer, I‘d have suggested that you search the web yourself. How Socratic of you

Cheers.

[Edited for legibility]

 

[RoyalHighlander]

I see that im not the only one her that MR Sherwood has taken offence to with our postings. Sherwood you have to rememeber that this being a Canadian site, it will have a Canadian slant to its topics and to the members posts and opinions.. Alas we are not living in a perfect world, but thanks to many members here your self included we are able to express diverse opinions even though they may not be popular or correct. And if any of my previous posts offended you im sorry, some I saw after looking over them were intended tougue in cheek and not a serious accusation against any one.

 

[mattoigta]

nULL, can you post the references of those quotes (from american policy)?