Posted on 12/23/2004 10:55:13 AM PST by t-1000
NEW YORK In a column noting the high number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq who will be far from home on Christmas, USA Today founder Al Neuharth declared today that if he were eligible to serve in Iraq, "I would do all I could to avoid it." He also wrote in his weekly column for the paper that America's New Year's resolution should be to bring the troops home "sooner rather than later."
Neuharth, 80, a World War II vet, said he would happily volunteer for that kind of "highly moral duty again." But he would avoid serving in Iraq, likening it to the Vietnam war, which "many of the polticially connected" managed to escape.
He concluded that "support our troops" is a wonderful slogan but "the best way to support our troops thrust by unwise commanders- in-chief into ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later. That should be our New Year's resolution."
Neuharth served in the infantry in World War II in France, Germany and the Philippines. He noted that he and his colleagues in that war were "properly armed and equipped."
Sounds like early phases of dementia are setting in.
Thank God he isn't allowing his bias to influence the news coverage at his newspaper.......
I did not know Humvees in WWII had the proper armor. Care to compare causalities?
Al has been demented for as long as I can remember. There were plenty of idiots who served during WWII and Al was one.
USA today goes left and right with left leanings.
Just about as good an idea as dedicating your newspaper to gun control throughout the '90's.
About as effective, too. (big, toothy grin)
Yep.
Him and Andy Rooney are probably bowling partners.
The sound exactly alike.
Like they have some great prespective because they had to hand wash their clothes.
They both are so detached they are not even aware of it.
Both are twits.
I never read the paper. I just looked at all the pretty color graphs, Charts, pictures, wiped, then flushed it.
**He noted that he and his colleagues in that war were "properly armed and equipped.**
Oh for christ sake, the military during the first two years of WWII had some of the worst equipment in the World. Ask the Topedo plane pilots of Midway when their crappy arming switch released the topedo's prematurely or the Submariners who found their torpedos would not work as expected.
We lost more men training for D-Day than on D-Day thanks in part to substandard equipment.
I wish we would break up Gannett news media empire
You should read his other rag: "Florida Today".
It's our county paper. It uses a hideous red/orange logo. Locals call it "The Red Paper" for it's anti-conservative/far left bias.
You forgot to add "(sarcasm)".
That is not at all true. Pre-Pearl Harbor Gallup polls show at least 60% of Americans quite clear about the Axis powers being America's enemies and we're being next on their list if they win. That percentage agreed that it was more important to stop Hitler than avoid war. America was not at all as pacifist and isolationist as revisionists believe.
Opposition to the Vietnam War had three components. The first was pacifists. The second was hard core leftists. The Joan Baez and William Kunstler opposition. Politically insignificant. Opposition became very significant when the third group appeared, the Clark Clifford opposition. Mainstream people who had supported the Tonkin Gulf Resolution but now three years later doubted whether the goals were at all realistic and the cost worth it. If Michael Moore and MoveOn are the pacifist ultra left opposition of today, Al Neuharth is the Clark Clifford opposition. And it will grow.
He noted that he and his colleagues in that war were "properly armed and equipped."
I did not know Humvees in WWII had the proper armor. Care to compare causalities?
Also the ubiquitous Sherman tank of WW II was a lousy match for its German opponents. It had insufficient armor, inferior armament and had a bad tendency to burn when hit. It was so vulnerable the GIs" nickname for the Sherman was "Ronson", a common brand of cigarette lighter at the time. However, the GIs soldiered on, and the Sherman was available in large numbers, so we developed battle tactics that minimized the tank's shortcomings and prevailed.
How can one war be more moral than anyother? Can someone help me understand this? Seriously, though, i always hear people refer to World War II as the ' great moral war" oh, yeah, well where the hell was the US and the world, when Japan invaded China? When Hitler invaded Poland, when we sold out the Czech's- many say Pearl Harbor caught us by suprise, no if you look at history, look at what Japan had done, it is no suprise. Also, the Battle of the Bulge was distorted by censorship and obscured by security- the ' local counterattacks' were in reality a major breakthrough, American troops were in precipitate retreat and in amazed confusion.
I did not know Humvees in WWII had the proper armor. Care to compare causalities?
Actually, the US went to war in 1941 woefully unprepared despite efforts to alter that the previous months. Furthermore, even the Sherman tanks of those days were paper thin by comparison to their German counterparts. Tank men welded scrap metal to their tanks, tied logs to the sides or placed hay bales or sand bags on the tanks...anything they could find.
In those days, as today, there wasn't anyone to go see about problems in war. In those days as today we went to war with the military we had. In those days as today those responsible for fighting used all the resources at their disposal to better their odds. It's been that way for all of hispory.
It sounds like Mr, Neuharth has a little senile dementia setting in.
Oh, and the US was woefully unprepared in Korea just a few years later, as well.
I haven't opened a USA Today in years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.