Wengart Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a72_Sxta1c, just in case some of you missed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Nice LVTs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Thanks for the reminder, I forgot about this. Looking forward to it in 2010. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 HBO had youtube drop the video. You can see it here: http://www.hbo.com/events/pacific/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Thanks Wilhammer. Something to look forward to, eventually, probable 2012 or something here in the UK. Of course, the BBC should do "The Desert Rats" or sumfink. Mind you the last military history they did, Dunkirk, was cringe worthy. They don't realise that yes, we understand war is A Bad Thing but yes, it's still OK to see these people as heroes. Because heroism isn't just inventing a polio vaccine or being nice to all mankind it's also doing your duty when the things you love are threatened and that might, hopefully not but might, involve dying, and it might, hopefully not but might, mean killing. But it's still heroism - and people want it to be recognised. That fact seems to be lost on Auntie Beeb. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Nice LVTs. Crappy homefront flashbacks. Oh, joy !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 looking forward to this as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Thanks Wilhammer. Something to look forward to, eventually, probable 2012 or something here in the UK. Torrents. When Battlestar Galactica resurfaced, it was shown several months ahead on Sky One before it got to the USA- I would get the episodes the next day via EZTV or Mininova. It is said that this helped 'kill television' at the time. http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html ------------------------- Yes, a BoB type show chronically a unit that went to North Africa, Greece, Crete, back to North Africa, Italy would be rather great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWDWD Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Hmmm... Seemed kinda Thin Red Line-ish. I personally liked that movie, though I get why many others didn't. (Enter snippy comment about all the really neat stuff lost in the forum purges here.) In any case, I'll be looking forward to this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hmm, that word - heroes. I have seen, and have interviewed some myself, many veterans speaking about their experience in war. I never found a common denominator except in one regard. Every single one, without exception, insisted that they were not heroes. For veterans 'hero' is a word used by a bunch of civvies who have no direct experience of war. It implies that war is somehow 'heroic'. They know otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hmm, that word - heroes. I have seen, and have interviewed some myself, many veterans speaking about their experience in war. I never found a common denominator except in one regard. Every single one, without exception, insisted that they were not heroes. For veterans 'hero' is a word used by a bunch of civvies who have no direct experience of war. It implies that war is somehow 'heroic'. They know otherwise. It's not them that define heroism - it's history. Every culture needs its heroes. And they're ours. Whether they like it or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, if they don't like it (they don't), maybe out of respect 'culture' should stop pigeonholing and offending them? It says a lot about modern society though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nope. A society needs an ideal of heroism. Every society, not just modern. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 But why does 'society' need to believe that war in particular is heroic when those have been there insist it is not? Surely there are enough alternatives nowadays from reality TV 'stars' to charity workers for needy people to latch on to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It's not war, it's people who have sacrificed for that particular society. And it's not needy people, it's society in general. Face it Rob. Jade is gone. We all have to adapt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 What's the DVD release date? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 2010? Jeez still a little early for a preview. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Hear hear. I can see Other Means' point about modern society needing heroes, but even though some of them were doubtless very brave I think that soldiers are iffy role models. I would not, generally speaking, choose them. Whatever heroics war provides, it is outweighed by the death and destruction. War in my opinion almost always cannot be redeemed, it is with a few rare exceptions always bad and not worth it. Every time I see a war documentary or news piece about some soldier acting heroically, I want to shout at the screen: "Yeah, but how many people had to die (and property be damaged, and families smashed, and societies upended) to provide the backdrop for that heroic act?" or, quite often - "Yeah, but this hero of yours, he was armed and part of an army. What about the civilians that get bombed and shot and raped in the same damn war, they can't call in artillery and they can't shoot back, their casualty rates are a bazillion times what this soldier's unit suffered, why isn't any one giving the civilians medals? I don't think honestly heroic acts by soldiers are impossible, of course. But it seems to me like the process of singling out war heroes almost always has more to do with society's leaders trying to convince society good can be found in war, and society's followers must be prepared to sacrifice in wars, than it does with praising exemplary behavior. Here's Sherman's quote: "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell." This is the basis of the famouse "war is hell" line. But I think it's worth emphasising the all in the actual quote. Me, I think society would be far better off if it held up AIDS doctors or street cops or teachers in gangster-run high schools or indeed maybe even garbagemen as its heroes. You look at the numbers, and the personal risk of these people face is higher than many if not most soldiers, and the job of these people is directly helping society, which is a bit different from what a soldier does, which is killing people from another society in the name of his own society's good. Of course, stories about the glory of war are older than Homer, and young men haven't gotten any wiser since the Troy campaign, so I don't think society is in any danger of looking at soldiers and combat honestly any time soon. Hmm, that word - heroes. I have seen, and have interviewed some myself, many veterans speaking about their experience in war. I never found a common denominator except in one regard. Every single one, without exception, insisted that they were not heroes. For veterans 'hero' is a word used by a bunch of civvies who have no direct experience of war. It implies that war is somehow 'heroic'. They know otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 If in smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro Patria mori. —Wilfred Owen ------------------------------------------------------------ In a letter to the city council of Atlanta dated September 12, 1864, Sherman wrote: You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. I can imagine him saying (or thinking) this as he watched Atlanta being burned on his orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I would say the issue is not so much that there are no longer any heroes in war as the fact that war has lost much of its glamour. Prior to the advent of television, civilians would generally find out about war through oral stories, newspaper, books and paintings, most of which tended to glamorize the heroic aspects of war. Even in WW2, reporters left out the worst aspects of combat. The documentary "With the marines at Tarawa" was a noticeable exception, but it required the approval of president Roosevelt to be released. By the time Vietnam rolled around, news cameras were everywhere, for example these CBS news reports from the 1968 Tet offensive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiW5FXs1n6M and now of course, on the net, you can find pretty much anything: http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=190518&page=1 Once civilians sitting on their ass safely at home (like me ) can get of glimpse of the real face of war, it does not look very glamorous at all. It looks more like organized slaughter, hard to find much heroics in that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 War, as Shaw said, is obscene. It's the fact that the people we force to go fight them for us do so with dignity and bravery that makes them heroes. They go through hell for us, and that's heroic. Even if they didn't have a choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Well I'm hard put to think of anyone who is forced to fight. There is always a choice involved, not everyone had to pull a trigger even if they joined the forces. And bad news m8, AFAIK soldiers don't give a stuff about you or me. They fight for their buddy who is next to them in the hole, to avoid letting him down. They certainly don't go through hell for 'us'. Isn't it funny how when the cost of war is being driven home the 'hero' volume is ramped up by Governments. I'm remain convinced that politicians, some businesses, and clueless or war-loving civvies are the main 'hero' worshippers. Soldiers themselves aren't interested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 And bad news m8, AFAIK soldiers don't give a stuff about you or me. They fight for their buddy who is next to them in the hole, to avoid letting him down. They certainly don't go through hell for 'us'. Primary- and Sub-Primary-Group loyaties, blah blah blah. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion, because at the end of the day, yes, they do "go through hell for 'us'." In western democracies it is we, the people, through our elected representatives, who decide when and where to employ military force. We chose to go to WWII, or rather to send our soldiers saliors, and airmen. We sent them to do our bidding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Isn't it funny how when the cost of war is being driven home the 'hero' volume is ramped up by Governments. NZ's army Victoria Crosses in WWII were won over about an 18-month period, encompassing the fal of Greece, the fall of Crete, CRUSADER, and the defence of the Alamein Line. One more came quite late in the North Africa campaign, but apparently there was no "most conspicuous gallantry, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour, self sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy" by NZ soldiers in Italy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 A hero is someone who saves lives, not takes them. Since a soldiers job is mainly to take lives, kinda hard to think of ones self as a hero, even if he is saving lives by taking others.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.