HBO doesn't like the military either...big surprise...

[elder999]

That may be. I don't know. I was never in the Air Force. I can tell you about the US Army when I served in it.. I can assure you it was not US Army policy anywhere I was.

During the Vietnam War, Special Units of the US Military, such as MACV-SOG, were issued dextroamphetamine tablets. Due to the threat of misuse, these tablets were given to the Commanding Officer of the unit, and given out when needed

And, from this article:

All three US military services currently approve dextroamphetamine for the sustainment of combat-pilot performance under particularly fatiguing circumstances.

 

[billc]

First,

We made AMericans of Japanese descent prisoners in their own country, but didn't do the same to Americans of German descent.

From wikipedia...

At the start of World War II, under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and interned over 11,000 German enemy aliens, as well as a small number of German-American citizens, either naturalized or native-born. Their ranks included immigrants to the U.S. as well as visitors stranded in the U.S. by hostilities. In many cases, the families of the internees were allowed to remain together at internment camps in the U.S. In other cases, families were separated. Limited due process was allowed for those arrested and detained.
The population of German citizens in the United States – not to mention American citizens of German birth – was far too large for a general policy of internment comparable to that used in the case of the Japanese in America.[SUP][24][/SUP] Instead, German citizens were detained and evicted from coastal areas on an individual basis. The War Department considered mass expulsions from coastal areas for reasons of military security, but never executed such plans.[SUP][25][/SUP]
A total of 11,507 Germans and German-Americans were interned during the war, accounting for 36% of the total internments under the Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program, but far less than the 110,000 Japanese-Americans interned.[SUP][26][/SUP] Such internments began with the detention of 1,260 Germans shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.[SUP][27][/SUP] Of the 254 persons evicted from coastal areas, the majority were German.[SUP][28][/SUP]
In addition, over 4,500 ethnic Germans were brought to the U.S. from Latin America and similarly detained.

Italians were also interned in camps as well. As to what Hanks said about the war...

The offensive part is mostly this...

"They were out to kill us because our way of living was different.
"We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different.
"Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

We didn't want to annihilate them because the were different, and that doesn't portray the pacific theater accurately.

As Victor Davis Hanson says in addressing Tom Hanks' statements...

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031310.html

Hanks thinks he is trying to explain the multifaceted Pacific theater in terms of a war brought on by and fought through racial animosity. That is ludicrous. Consider the following.

We should also point out that for many Americans, initially in 1941-2, the real war was with the Japanese, not the Germans (despite an official policy of privileging the European theater in terms of supply and manpower), but not because of race hatred, but due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

Asian Relations

In earlier times, we had good relations with Japan (an ally during World War I, that played an important naval role in defeating imperial Germany at sea) and had stayed neutral in its disputes with Russia (Teddy Roosevelt won a 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for his intermediary role). The crisis that led to Pearl Harbor was not innately with the Japanese people per se (tens of thousands of whom had emigrated to the United States on word of mouth reports of opportunity for Japanese immigrants), but with Japanese militarism and its creed of Bushido that had hijacked, violently so in many cases, the government and put an entire society on a fascistic footing. We no more wished to annihilate Japanese because of racial hatred than we wished to ally with their Chinese enemies because of racial affinity. In terms of geo-strategy, race was not the real catalyst for war other than its role among Japanese militarists in energizing expansive Japanese militarism.

War in the Pacific
How would Hanks explain the brutal Pacific wars between Japanese and Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, Japanese and Filipinos, and Japanese and Pacific Islanders, in which not hundreds of thousands perished, but many millions? In each of these theaters, the United States was allied with Asians against an Asian Japan, whose racially-hyped “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,” aimed at freeing supposedly kindred Asians from European and white imperialism, flopped at its inauguration (primarily because of high-handed Japanese feelings of superiority and entitlement, which, in their emphasis on racial purity, were antithetical to the allied democracies, but quite in tune with kindred Axis power, Nazi Germany.)

Weapons
Much of the devastating weaponry used on the Japanese (e.g., the B-29 fire raids, or the two nuclear bombs) were envisioned and designed to be used against Germany (cf. the 1941 worry over German nuclear physics) or were refined first in the European theater (cf. the allied fire raids on Hamburg and Dresden). Much of the worst savagery of the war came in 1945 when an increasingly mobilized and ever more powerful United States steadily turned its attention on Japan as the European theater waned and then ended four months before victory in the Pacific theater. Had we needed by 1945 to use atomic bombs, or massive formations of B-29s when they came on line, against Hitler, we most certainly would have.

 

[billc]

With a show like True Blood, with each episode only an hour long, there are three basic ways to depict American Soldiers fighting against men who murder innocent people as policy. You can show them as all good, all bad or in a more nuanced way depicting the stress of men in war and the effects it has on them. HBO chose to depict them in the worst way possible. Had this been one show, in an assortment of depictions coming from hollywood, then no big deal. The vast majority of movies and television shows depicting the fight against islamic radical terrorists have shown American soldiers, and marines in the worst way possible, as drug addicts, nut jobs, crazed killers or complete victims. This show is no different than the other depictions out there.

It is not American training doctrine to kill innocent civilians. Atrocities happen, as has been pointed out, due to putting normal people in war situations, but American training and policy does not include targeting innocent civilians. This is however, the policy of the actual people we are fighting. The lopsided view of who does what to who starts to permeate the culture, much like the previous examples of the "crazed" vietnam vet, which was a false depiction of the actual vets.

Since this is a show about vampires and werewolves, there was no expectation to go into a nuanced portrayal of war and its horrors, so they chose to show the worst qualities of our soldiers.

And to how the Japanese portrayed us...

http://www.psywarrior.com/JapanPSYOPWW2.html

Churchill and Roosevelt feast on bones​

The beheading of prisoners was a common practice with the Japanese army, not something brought on by the stress of combat, but an actual approved practice. I read a story told by a Japanese officer in China where as a bonding and training excercise, each officer in the unit had to behead chinese prisoners. He remembered one officer who missed the cut, cutting the prisoner across the shoulder blade, and they had to chase the prisoner around as he ran about the compound, slashing at him to kill him. The Japanese also told the civilian population that the G.I.'s were cannibals and would eat anyone they captured.

 

[elder999]

With a show like True Blood, with each episode only an hour long, there are three basic ways to depict American Soldiers fighting against men who murder innocent people as policy. You can show them as all good, all bad or in a more nuanced way depicting the stress of men in war and the effects it has on them. HBO chose to depict them in the worst way possible. Had this been one show, in an assortment of depictions coming from hollywood, then no big deal. The vast majority of movies and television shows depicting the fight against islamic radical terrorists have shown American soldiers, and marines in the worst way possible, as drug addicts, nut jobs, crazed killers or complete victims. This show is no different than the other depictions out there.

It is not American training doctrine to kill innocent civilians. Atrocities happen, as has been pointed out, due to putting normal people in war situations, but American training and policy does not include targeting innocent civilians. This is however, the policy of the actual people we are fighting. The lopsided view of who does what to who starts to permeate the culture, much like the previous examples of the "crazed" vietnam vet, which was a false depiction of the actual vets.

Since this is a show about vampires and werewolves, there was no expectation to go into a nuanced portrayal of war and its horrors, so they chose to show the worst qualities of our soldiers.

Yes, these things happen-the "worst qualities of our soldiers," though? I'm not so sure. After all, I think the character who was present for those events is a sympathetic one, if not one of the main characters, and at least appears to be conflicted if not remorseful about it.

Frankly, I find your analyses of these and other forms of literature and entertainment to be extremely myopic and one-sided, unnuanced and unintelligent: this is an event that is probably used by the writer to introduce nuance and depth-the "backstory," if you will-to one of the supporting characters, as well as give them their own story line for the season. That is all. It's not about "the military." It's not about "the war in Iraq." It's not about "the U.S.A." It's about one character in a fictional account in a completely fabricated universe that is only related to ours in the most marginal of ways: the person whose head almost completely contains lives in ours with us, most of the time. Parts of the rest of the time, he lives in the universe of True Blood, where the advent of synthetic blood has made vampires come out of the darkness after millenia in hiding, where werewolves walk, a waitress can read minds, voodoo works, and, yes, there is a "war on terror."

I mean, honestly-if atrocities do occur,and troops do take drugs and drink, they are going to be written about, one way or another.

Quite honestly, this one note criticism of yours has grown quite tiresome, and now, with this True Blood thing, you've demonstrated amply just how ridiculous it is. :lfao:

And to how the Japanese portrayed us...

All of which does nothing to negate anything I said about the inherent racism of American society at the time, and our clearly racist attitudes towards the Japanese.

The beheading of prisoners was a common practice with the Japanese army, not something brought on by the stress of combat, but an actual approved practice. I read a story told by a Japanese officer in China where as a bonding and training excercise, each officer in the unit had to behead chinese prisoners. He remembered one officer who missed the cut, cutting the prisoner across the shoulder blade, and they had to chase the prisoner around as he ran about the compound, slashing at him to kill him. The Japanese also told the civilian population that the G.I.'s were cannibals and would eat anyone they captured.

Yes, and my ancestors beat people to death, set them on fire, and buried them up to the chin at shore below the tide line, and waited for the tide to come in for entertainment-actually, if the story is to be believed, my great-great-grandfather did that to a man when he got home from a long sea voyage. :lfao:

 

[billc]

I think it is rather odd, Tom Hanks was in a movie about World War 2. Amazingly, his character didn't drink, murder, rape, anyone. In fact, his character heroically stopped his men from killing an unarmed german prisoner. Hmmm...why didn't Tom Hanks appear in a movie where, as an American soldier, he was involved in murder, rape or torture of innocent men, women and children. He chose one of the very few movies where our guys didn't do that stuff. Hmmm...

Imagine the scene in the French town where Tom Hanks and his squad encounter the French Family. Instead of lifting them out of their rubbalized house, they rape the mother and daughter( I think it was a daughter) kill all of them and then drink all their french wine, the whole time laughing and joking...and then they save private ryan. It would be quite a different movie.

Here is a question. Given the above discussion about how men behave in war, and it's depiction in movies, why is the European Theater of World War 2 one of the only wars that doesn't routinely show the American soldier as drunks (world war 2 after all), murderers, rapists and psychos? Look at World War 2. We were never attacked by Germany/iraq, and when we attacked them we didn't attack Germany (at first)/Afganistan, but we attacked Africa. This is after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

Another thought. How long would the Greatest Generation be the Greatest Generation, if every movie and television show that showed the European theater of world war 2 only depicted American, British and other Allied forces as murderers of innocent civilians and rapists, as well as drunks and nuts? Not every other film, but virtually every movie or television show. The show Combat, with Vic Morrow, would show the heroes gleefully killing innocent men and women, drinking while they were doing it, and then covering it up. John Wayne would lead his men, not against the Japanese, but peaceful Okinawans, Phillipinos and other gentle indigenous people, happily murdering them. How long would the Greatest Generation be called that?

 

[elder999]

I think it is rather odd, Tom Hanks was in a movie about World War 2. Amazingly, his character didn't drink, murder, rape, anyone. In fact, his character heroically stopped his men from killing an unarmed german prisoner. Hmmm...why didn't Tom Hanks appear in a movie where, as an American soldier, he was involved in murder, rape or torture of innocent men, women and children. He chose one of the very few movies where our guys didn't do that stuff. Hmmm...

Imagine the scene in the French town where Tom Hanks and his squad encounter the French Family. Instead of





lifting them out of their rubbalized house, they rape the mother and daughter( I think it was a daughter) kill all of them and then drink all their french wine, the whole time laughing and joking...and then they save private ryan. It would be quite a different movie.

Here is a question. Given the above discussion about how men behave in war, and it's depiction in movies, why is the European Theater of World War 2 one of the only wars that doesn't routinely show the American soldier as drunks (world war 2 after all), murderers, rapists and psychos? Look at World War 2. We were never attacked by Germany/iraq, and when we attacked them we didn't attack Germany (at first)/Afganistan, but we attacked Africa. This is after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

Another thought. How long would the Greatest Generation be the Greatest Generation, if every movie and television show that showed the European theater of world war 2 only depicted American, British and other Allied forces as murderers of innocent civilians and rapists, as well as drunks and nuts? Not every other film, but virtually every movie or television show. The show Combat, with Vic Morrow, would show the heroes gleefully killing innocent men and women, drinking while they were doing it, and then covering it up. John Wayne would lead his men, not against the Japanese, but peaceful Okinawans, Phillipinos and other gentle indigenous people, happily murdering them. How long would the Greatest Generation be called that?

Amazing. Four whole paragraphs without a link or copy 'n paste! All original thought.My,, my.


Boring and predictable, not to mention banal, but genuine.

Completely irrelevant, as far as vampires, Iraq, and HBO go, but still.........

 

[oftheherd1]

During the Vietnam War, Special Units of the US Military, such as MACV-SOG, were issued dextroamphetamine tablets. Due to the threat of misuse, these tablets were given to the Commanding Officer of the unit, and given out when needed

MACV-SOG was a very specialized unit, not operating under normal military rules. Much of what they did remains, as far as I know, classified to this day. I was not in MACV-SOG. So I can't say if dextroamphetamine use was common, heavily controlled, or rampant.



And, from this article:


All three US military services currently approve dextroamphetamine for the sustainment of combat-pilot performance under particularly fatiguing circumstances.

I find that a little suspect. But since I am not in the military now I can't say from personal experience that it is true or not. I think the US Army essentially only has helicopters now, and that has been so for some time. They may still have a few fixed wing aircraft, but I am not sure, and if so, they are probably liaison craft. Helicopters can fly surprisingly long times, but don't fly 15, 24, or longer to my knowledge. Their maintenance requirements don't support that afik.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[elder999]

Just a couple of thoughts.

[h=1]U.S. military: Heavily armed and medicated

U.S. military’s war with drugs: Drugs issued by military led to assaults, murders, doctors say
Prescription & OTC Drug Abuse in the Military


Just a couple of articles....








[/h]

 

[billc]

And another little bit about Tom Hanks ...

Hanks on the Recent War
Hanks quips, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on
today?” That is another unnecessary if asinine statement — if it refers to our
struggle against radical Islam in the post 9/11 world. The U.S. has risked much
to help Muslims in the Balkans and Somalia, freed Kuwait and Iraq in two wars
against Saddam Hussein, liberated or helped to liberate Afghanistan both from
the Russians and the Taliban, and has the most generous immigration policy
toward Muslims of any country in the world, ensuring a degree of tolerance
unimaginable to Muslims in, say, China or Russia. Hanks should compare the U.S.
effort to foster democracy in Iraq with the Russian conduct in Chechnya to
understand “what’s going on today.”

Unhinged
In short Hanks’s comments are as ahistorical as they are unhinged. One
wonders — were they supposed to entice us into watching the upcoming HBO series
on the Pacific theater? But if anyone is interested in the role of race on the
battlefield, one could probably do far better in skipping Hanks, and reading
instead E.B. Sledge’s brilliant memoir, With the Old Breed, which has a
far more sophisticated analysis of race and combat on Peleliu and Okinawa, and
was apparently (and I hope fairly) drawn upon in the HBO series. (Sledge speaks
of atrocities on both sides in the horrific close-quarter fighting on the
islands, but he makes critical distinctions about accepted and non-accepted
behaviors, the differences between Japanese and American attitudes, and in
brilliant fashion appreciates the role of these campaigns in the larger war. One
should memorize the last lines of his book.)

It would be easy to say that
Hanks knows about as much about history as historians do about acting, but that
would be too charitable. Anyone with a high school education, or an innate
curiosity to read (and Hanks in the interview references works on the Pacific
theater), can easily learn the truth on these broad subjects. In Hanks’ case, he
is either ignorant and has done little real research, or in politically-correct
fashion has taken a truth about combat in the Pacific (perceptions of cultural
and racial difference often did intensify the savagery of combat) and turned it
into The Truth about the origins and conduct of an entire war — apparently in
smug expectation that such doctrinaire revisionism wins applause these days in
the right places (though I doubt among the general public that he expects to
watch the series.)

All in all, such moral equivalence (the Japanese and
the U.S. were supposedly about the same in their hatreds) is quite sad, and yet
another commentary on our postmodern society that is as ignorant about its own
past as it is confused in its troubled present

 

[elder999]

And another little bit about Tom Hanks ...

Who produced a show that appeared on HBO-relevance?

I mean-he's not HBO-just some guy who works with them........

HBO is a Time/Warner company-last I looked, most of Time/Warner's board of directors were pretty solidly in the rah, rah, rah, USA!USA!USA! Republican camp.....:

Board of directors As of June 24, 2010:Jeffrey L. Bewkes: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner Inc.
James Barksdale: Chairman and President, Barksdale Management Corporation
William P. Barr: Former Attorney General of the United States
Stephen F. Bollenbach: Former Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hilton Hotels Corporation
Frank J. Caufield: Co-Founder and Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Robert C. Clark: Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University
Mathias Döpfner: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Axel Springer AG
Jessica P. Einhorn: Dean, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University
Fred Hassan: Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Schering-Plough Corporation
Michael A. Miles: Special Limited Partner, Forstmann Little & Company
Ken Novack: Senior Counsel, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
Deborah Wright: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Carver Bancorp, Inc.

Dilip Mehta: Director of turner broadcasting network, Cartoon network, Inc.

Except, of course, for that Robert Clark fella-he's a Harvard law professor, so he's an Obamafriend, so he must "hate the military, guns ,apple pie and America." :lfao:

 

[WC_lun]

Oh come on Elder, you know Tom Hanks is the liberal mastermind behind every bit of anti-military propaganda in the world! How dare you you contradict that by...well facts?

 

[oftheherd1]

U.S. military: Heavily armed and medicated

U.S. military’s war with drugs: Drugs issued by military led to assaults, murders, doctors say
Prescription & OTC Drug Abuse in the Military


Just a couple of articles....

/QUOTE]

That's a bleak picture of the military. I hope it is exaggerated. I will have to try to talk to some people I know who are still associated with the military to see what they say.

But that has nothing to do with how I saw things when I was in.

 

[JWLuiza]

I quite understand. I take metformin for my diabetes. I have recently been taking vitamin D because my doctor asked me to, since my blood tests recently showed a very low level of it (it has risen to 'normal' level since I started taking it). Other than that, nothing.

And that gets some interesting reactions when I go to the doctor's office.

"What high blood pressure medication do you take?"
"None."
"None?" *look of incredulity*
"None."
"Ah.....OK. What cholesterol-lowering medication do you take?"
"None."
"None? Are you sure?"
"Yeah, I'm sure."
"Did the doctor prescribe it and you're just not taking it?"
"No, I don't need it and I wasn't prescribed it."
"Hmmm."

Well if you have high blood pressure that's the conversation you and I would have. If your numbers are fine I'd leave it alone.

So apparently, everyone my age and/or weight takes blood pressure medication and cholesterol medication. Nation of bloody pill-poppers, we are.

Yeah, because we're a bunch of fatties. Managing blood pressure is a life saving medication. Statins dont' have evidence for primary prevention but are shown to be effective for post-MI patients. You haven't had an MI and have high lipids then you should exercise consistently and think about your diet.

And this gem...

"Do you snore?"
"No, but I used to."
"How do you know?"
"My wife tells me."
"OK, I'm going to schedule your for a sleep study. Don't worry, your insurance will cover the cost."
"No, thank you."
"What? Don't you understand that sleep apnea kills?"
"Yes. I don't have it."
"Well, we'll have to schedule a sleep study to know that."
"I'm not going to take a sleep study."
"Why not?"
"Because supposing you find that I have sleep apnea (which I suspect is the universal answer to everyone who takes it), you'll prescribe a CPAP machine for me. Which costs hundreds of dollars, and I won't wear it anyway. So there's no point in this exercise."
"But sleep apnea kills!"
"Thank you for your time, doctor. Goodbye."

As doctors our goal is not to put everyone on medications. Our goal is to maintain health. We don't get comission off the CPAP but we can prevent pulmonary hypertension. If your wife is a heavy sleeper and you have some diastolic dysfunction, then you might make a case for a sleep study or you ha previous findings on a study. Are you having daytime sleepiness, etc.

I don't get the hate on doctors. I know this is out of scope for the discussion but I'm not spending 8 productive years on education to treat people to rack up a bill.

 

[billc]

Tom Hanks was a producer on the HBO pacific theater mini series...

A film producer oversees and delivers a film project to the film studio or other financing entity, while preserving the integrity, voice and vision of the film. They will also often take on some financial risk by using their own money, especially during the pre-production period, before a film is fully financed. Many film producers also have competency in other fields (directors, screenwriters, actors) but that is not always the case.
The producer is often actively involved throughout all major phases of the filmmaking process, from inception and development to completion and delivery of a film project.[SUP][1][/SUP] However, an idea or concept for a film can originate with any individual, including a screenwriter, a director or a producer.

Master mind for all movies and television that depict veterans in a bad way, no, but for this show, he had a pretty big part in it...[h=2][edit][/h]

 

[oftheherd1]

Well if you have high blood pressure that's the conversation you and I would have. If your numbers are fine I'd leave it alone.


Yeah, because we're a bunch of fatties. Managing blood pressure is a life saving medication. Statins dont' have evidence for primary prevention but are shown to be effective for post-MI patients. You haven't had an MI and have high lipids then you should exercise consistently and think about your diet.



As doctors our goal is not to put everyone on medications. Our goal is to maintain health. We don't get comission off the CPAP but we can prevent pulmonary hypertension. If your wife is a heavy sleeper and you have some diastolic dysfunction, then you might make a case for a sleep study or you ha previous findings on a study. Are you having daytime sleepiness, etc.

I don't get the hate on doctors. I know this is out of scope for the discussion but I'm not spending 8 productive years on education to treat people to rack up a bill.

I don't think it is hate of doctors, at least for the most part. We probably prefer to self diagnose. After all, we know more about our bodies than anyone else. Right? ;-)

If you were to ask me, I would say the biggest problem I see with doctors is bedside manner. Many don't have the ability to communicate well. Sometimes that may be the the short amount of time HMOs give them, or maybe their sense of shortening time to serve more patients. But those who have it, tend to stand out in my experience.

But I salute doctors. I don't think most people understand the vast amount of information we require doctors to have on instant recall when they graduate medical school and their internship. And it keeps on coming because medical research doesn't stand still. They not only have to keep up to be good doctors in their own mind, but for fear of law suits.

And I can't speak for Bill Mattocks, but I don't think he meant it so much as a put down for doctors, as just happiness at his own health, and putting that out with some humor. As a doctor, that humor might be less enjoyable of course.

 

[elder999]

Tom Hanks was a producer on the HBO pacific theater mini series...




Master mind for all movies and television that depict veterans in a bad way, no, but for this show, he had a pretty big part in it...[edit]

So he paid to make a miniseries on the Pacific theater.......

And HBO showed it........

To a pretty good critical reception........

And it portrayed Marines in a positive light.........


And it was based on the factual accounts of several Marines with the First Marine Division in the Pacific, With the Old Breed, and China Marine, by Eugene Sledge, Helmet for my Pillow, by Robert Leicke, and Red Blood, Black Sand, by Chuck Tatum.

In fact, SLedge and Leicke were two of the main characters....

And Tom Hanks had something to say about it, and you and your "conservative blogmeisters" didn't like what he had to say, but he's not HBO, he's just a guy who sold a show to HBO.


Honestly, this constant refusal to admit that one's opinion has some flaws in it, or that the basis of that opinion is in error, and to continue butress up a minority opinion with quibbling facts and lunatic fringe blog copypastas is quite irritating, and banal-not to mention somewhat delusional, monomaniacal and self-serving-not to mention completely iignoring anything that anyone has to say in rebuttal or counterpoint.

I mean, really: "discussion forum" much? :lol:

(Oh, btw, I'm also pretty sure Tom Hanks had nothing to do with True Blood, which is a pretty stupid show-made from even stupider books, I'd imagine: I mean, I can't even think of what kind of emotionally stunted dweeb would actually read that crap?-next we'll be getting critiques of Twilight, I suppose, or some other adolescent girl fodder.Southern Gothic redneck vampire romance? I don't think so-I prefer my fiction to have a set of testicles to go with all that blood....:lfao: )

 

[Sukerkin]

I was just going to say that I thought The Pacific was a pretty darned good series - it showed that good men in bad circumstances can do terrible things.