godofthunder9010, you have a good understanding of the real background of the conflict. It is too bad that this isn't taught in our schools.

[quote=deerslayer]lemme give ya the breakdown of world history last year.

my teacher said that "embedded reporting" did not exist before 2003.
quote]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWpyle.htm

Ernie Pyle, the son of a farmer, was born in 1900. After studying journalism at Indiana University he found work on a small newspaper in La Plante, Indiana. In 1923 he moved to the Washington Daily News and eventually became the paper's managing editor.
Pyle went with the US Army to North Africa in November 1942. This was followed by the invasions of Sicily and Italy. He also accompanied Allied troops during the Normandy landings and witnessed the liberation of France. By 1944 Pyle had established himself as one of the world's outstanding reporters and Time hailed him as "America's most widely read war correspondent."

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingame...ters/cronkite/

Walter Cronkite first gained national recognition for his reporting from the battlefields of World War II. As a United Press correspondent, Cronkite covered the landings in North Africa and Sicily, the Allied invasion of Normandy and the subsequent battles across France and Germany. He was also a member of the "Writing 69th," a group of intrepid reporters that accompanied Allied bombers on missions over Germany.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwbrady.html

Matthew Brady turned his attention to the Civil War. Planning to document the war on a grand scale, he organized a corps of photographers to follow the troops in the field. Friends tried to discourage him, citing battlefield dangers and financial risks, but Brady persisted. He later said, "I had to go. A spirit in my feet said 'Go,' and I went."

and ya know, I told her that. but the extent of the conversation was "baby, YOU'RE WRONG!"

Our teachers **** in Louisiana. I had a teacher today ask me, in front of the class, "You're handwriting is terrible! Are you dyslexic?" and then went on to nitpick on my shorthand. First off, that is unprofessional of an educator. Secondly, quality of handwriting doesn't have the first thing to do with dyslexia.
Anyway, the point here is that American education has gone down the drain, and becoming self-educated is probably the best course for those of us still in high school.

Missileer has the right of it. Journalism has been an integral part of every war since the Civil War, but I don't doubt it was included well before then. I'm just unaware of any assigned journalists to the US Military prior to the Civil War.

One point that the teacher or whoever said that "Imbedded reporting is an entirely new concept." had is the following: Gulf War I was the first large-scale conflict that the United States had been in since Vietnam. Because Presidient Bush and his administration was unwilling to damn our military to yet another run in with unrestricted journalist access to everything and anything, they were highly restrictive of who was allowed to know what, etc. Frankly, I think they were right to do so based on the following. Right in the middle of hostilities, some journalist asks, "So can you tell us where our troops are right this moment?" There is little doubt that unrestrictive reporting would have led to bad things. Afterall, "We're winning." just isn't a big selling story, now is it?

Old school was that journalists were actually enlisted and the military had a good amount of control of things, keeping the ugly bits out as well as not giving away important information to the enemy.

So in the most recent Iraq war, the journalists were allowed to come along again, but still were pretty restricted. They were allowed largely because the news media had been whining and complaining about being so restricted, and so forth.

I beleive that her overall comment was that "journalistic activity was not involved in prior wars"

The educators of today would like to believe that Vietnam is a war that never happened (the forgotten war). While there are still veterans living from that era, this will never happen. When students try to raise questions about Vietnam (before, during, and immediately after) teachers tend to short-circuit the discussion by decrying the war as the United States meddling in another countries politics and act as if the war never should have happened. This apparent Political Correctness is nauseating to me.

I have very very very strong memories of Vietnam and can easily remember almost every second of that service. I for one feel sad that our young people may never learn the true facts surrounding our involvement in Vietnam and the way our own government sold us down the drain. We DIDN'T lose the war in Vietnam, our government didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course. They bowed to the cowards that were agitating for the end of war by voting our soldiers home before the mission was completed. In the process congress abandoned our allies to the assault of outside agitators (Chinese troops along with North Vietnamese Regulars). The reasons then for being in Vietnam were very similar to the stated reasons for being in Iraq today. The ONLY differences between then and now is that the president then DID NOT twist the facts to justify involvement in Vietnam as the president of today did for Iraq.

You can argue that the real reason for involvement in Vietnam were not the real reasons given and in hindsight you MAY not be off the mark.

This does NOT change the fact that one of the youngest armies in history went to war as children and came home as old men and women.

Educators owe it to those who went to war when asked, those who died carrying out their orders, and those who came home to a society which DID NOT support them, something more than just lip service. They have earned the right to have their story presented to todays school children with the accuracy and respect yesterdays warriors deserve.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS NO EXCUSE FOR ATTEMPTING TO REWRITE HISTORY!

Originally Posted by deerslayer

and ya know, I told her that. but the extent of the conversation was "baby, YOU'RE WRONG!"

Our teachers **** in Louisiana. I had a teacher today ask me, in front of the class, "You're handwriting is terrible! Are you dyslexic?" and then went on to nitpick on my shorthand. First off, that is unprofessional of an educator. Secondly, quality of handwriting doesn't have the first thing to do with dyslexia.
Anyway, the point here is that American education has gone down the drain, and becoming self-educated is probably the best course for those of us still in high school.

Hang tough Deerslayer. I went through the same crap with teachers in my school when they made mistakes and I pointed them out. Just remember the point of an education system is NOT to educate it IS to take individuals and turn them into human beings that fit the mould of the current society. Its a factory designed to turn out cogs for the machine. Once you look at it in this light it will make it a lot easier to cope with on a daily basis. Self-guided learning is where true education lies.

Governments approve cirriculums for this very reason. Universities receive endowments from major corporations in exchange for the uni providing courses that train young people to fit the mould of what they wish to employ. There is nothing sinister about it and it is the same the world over. In China they want people who do what they are told and do not question things so the system trains them to be this way. In the US they want people to be creative but not subversive.

The Marxist educator Frere addressed this and was the very first educationalist to publicly acknowledge the agenda of education systems. He did so in an effort to foment revolution and was successful in two Latin American countries. This is something that even teachers often times don't know about their own profession.

Well, you may have to wait until after high school to find out the realities of Vietnam. I remember in the 80s being invited to speak at a history class at MIT. I had met one of the engineering students and we spoke about what she was being taught about Vietnam at school. I told her a bit about my own experiences and she went back to her professor with what I had told her. It was then that he offered the invitation.
I took him up on it knowing full well that I was walking into the situation with all the preconceptions of what my they thought a typical Vietnam vet was and what the conflict was all about. You see in most of the major universities, they are fully convinced that because they've read about it somewhere, they have a complete understanding of every aspect of the war. Yes I felt I would be walking in there as the baby killing robot of the military-industrial complex just like they were taught we all were. I felt it needed to be done. So, I braced myself for the questions about our drug abuse, alcoholism, and basic uncivilized behavior. After all that's what Hollywood told them we all were.
Well I showed up at that class and just sat in the back until I was introduced. They had been studying the war in previous weeks and came prepared with their questions. I fielded a couple and straightened them out a bit about the drug abuse. I told them that no impaired personnel was allowed on a patrol and the fact was that the soldiers wanted to keep all their wits about them. I was not in a rear echelon unit, I was in an infantry unit in the Central Highlands (along the Laotian border).
In any event I stopped fielding the questions and then told them what a typical few days with my unit might have been like, had they been there. I spoke for about 30 minutes in all and then asked for any more questions. I made a point of looking each student in the eyes. Not a hand went up and not a sound was heard. I turned to the prof. and asked if he had any questions. He said just one: "Will you please do me the honor of coming back?". I did and he thanked me for enlightening his students and for changing his mind. Mission accomplished
The bottom line is if you want to know the truth ask someone who was there

Always remember, Government funded education and organized religion have their own agendas. Ignore facts and change history.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Self-guided learning is where true education lies.

Dude, you're preaching to the choir. I've learned next to nothing in school, it has been the most inefficient thing I've ever participated in. I'll bet you 50% of all my "book smarts" have come from the history channel. Then you throw in my private reading of books, internet articles/forum interactions, discussions with friends, talk radio, etc. etc. etc. What I've actually learned in that federalized school system that has taken 35 hours a week, 16 years out of my life, has to account for less than 10% of my total "book smarts" hell, maybe less than 5%

Really, just try this. Try and take everything you've learned in a history class in the week in lecture, reading, and homework... stuff you're actually going to remember after the test. Now go watch one history channel program tonight, just any one hour program that you're interested in will do. And just weigh how much stuff you're going to remember after the history channel program and how much knowledge you have learned from class... it's pretty damned one-sided and that's just, what, 7hrs. vs. 1hr?

I know I'm getting damned close to rambling but since you hit a nerve I'll throw in one more example. I've had teachers in at least 3 classes that I can remember try and teach us about the crusades and outside of the fact that it was in Israel and the Pope ordered it I didn't know a thing. I watched one 4hr. long special on the history channel about a month ago and now I can talk about all the first 3 crusades in pretty thourough detail.

It's really qutie amazing how horrible "education " is in America.