Dead Reckoning
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Dead Reckoning
I mentioned this in an earlier thread about the Left's crusade to flood American homes/newspapers with images of fallen US soldiers. Seems like some have gotten out. http://www.drudgereport.com/dover.htm The strategy is to erode support for the war in Iraq. It was an effective anti-war tactic during Vietnam. As it stands, a little more than 700 American service personnel have died since the start of the war. More than 50,000 US service persons were killed during Vietnam.
Likewise. Technically, they should be allowed to, but it's pretty low and dishonerable and anybody that actually does it ought to expect to be the recipient of public disgrace, unless they have a darn good reason. "Yes" by a very narrow margin for me, and I'm still not sure I agree with myself on that.
I would urge folks to not cling to any overarching belief in press freedom when deciding. Feel free to flesh out your answer in your post. This was a very difficult one to word properly. Unfortunately I can't reword the question (or correct my spelling error 
).
My perspective is it is not newsworthy (Headline: SOLDIERS DIE IN WAR) and an intrusion that neither the soldiers themselves nor their families have a say in, used solely to exploit and heighten their grief for political gain. As such, I voted against press freedom in this instance.
).My perspective is it is not newsworthy (Headline: SOLDIERS DIE IN WAR) and an intrusion that neither the soldiers themselves nor their families have a say in, used solely to exploit and heighten their grief for political gain. As such, I voted against press freedom in this instance.
A little of both. Cable, sure. Internet, definitely. Regular TV stations, needless and shouldn't be allowed. People should be able to seek this information if they choose, but it shouldn't be forced upon them.
Bash, most of the left don't care to see these images. I believe that it has alot more to do with ratings then "the left's agenda in the liberal media"
Bash, most of the left don't care to see these images. I believe that it has alot more to do with ratings then "the left's agenda in the liberal media"
Nothing *official*, no, but do a search at Democratic Underground and you will find them. If you are offended by my generalization I will remove that reference. As I said, I don't want this to turn into a left vs right thread. FWIW, if you go to the Seattle Times (which first printed the pics) you will link to the Dem Rep McDermott in Windows Media, advocating that these images be shown. He doesn't say it's because he wants to erode support for the war but I doubt anyone would expect him to be so candid.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
If they have legal access to the location to take the picture I'd say it's their responsibility to report it and that report can include photos.
I also understand the tactic of using photo's of coffins or body bags to sway public opinion but the proper counter measure to sleazy journalism or political speech disguised as journalism has to be something other than censoring the photo's.
Part of that counter measure has been restricting the access which, in itself, borders on censorship in my opinion. Some access must be granted, when and where that access is given can help control the propaganda value and protect the dead soldiers families from having their loved ones turned into tools for protest.
A better job of explaining the 'big picture' regarding war in Iraq would have gone a long way to help americans see these photo's in proper context. And for the most part I think america already understands. Just look at their recent poll responses in favor of sending more troops to the war zone in spite of recent increases in casulties...
There is only one correct way to handle the outcome of a war that you started and that is to stand up and take it on the chin.
That doesn't mean they can't fire back and point out the sleaze factor of political enemies exploiting our dead soldiers.
I also understand the tactic of using photo's of coffins or body bags to sway public opinion but the proper counter measure to sleazy journalism or political speech disguised as journalism has to be something other than censoring the photo's.
Part of that counter measure has been restricting the access which, in itself, borders on censorship in my opinion. Some access must be granted, when and where that access is given can help control the propaganda value and protect the dead soldiers families from having their loved ones turned into tools for protest.
A better job of explaining the 'big picture' regarding war in Iraq would have gone a long way to help americans see these photo's in proper context. And for the most part I think america already understands. Just look at their recent poll responses in favor of sending more troops to the war zone in spite of recent increases in casulties...
There is only one correct way to handle the outcome of a war that you started and that is to stand up and take it on the chin.
That doesn't mean they can't fire back and point out the sleaze factor of political enemies exploiting our dead soldiers.
I believe it is for political gain. As the election nears I believe we will see more of an attempt to isolate what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq as *George Bush's War*, as some Americans try to divorce any responsibility for supporting it. As such, anything that goes wrong (and obviously dead soldiers falls under that heading) will be used to project failure upon a single man. That said, even it were only to increase ad dollars, to me that would be more obscene than using it for political gain.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
The politicizing of the war is really disgusting. You can oppose Bush's methods or even the whole war without diminishing or distorting the efforts of our soldiers.
Senator Kennedy calling it "Bush's Vietnam" is absolutely dispicable and purely political, don't doubt for a minute he'll find a way to incorporate references to the photo's of dead soldiers into his next series of anti-Bush rantings.
One year into Vietnam we weren't even one quarter of the way into sacrificing 50,000 troops for no good reason.
One year into Iraq and we've defeated the enemy army, started rebuilding and are establishing a democratic government right in the middle of the middle east! And we've done so with minimal losses, around 500-600 troops total.
We still have much to do though to fight off all the thousands of foriegn insurgents and Bathist/Saddam loyalist who snipe from the shadows.
But no way can you honestly compare it to Vietnam.
The Bathist leftovers and terrorist insurgents we are fighting now would measure their success in watching us cut and run. That's why a united front from america would do wonders to reduce casulties and speed the transformation of Iraq into a free society that isn't ripe for warlords and religious fundamentalist to take over.
The anti-Bush crowd needs to understand they are playing with the lives of many good people when they play their little petty political games.
The goal of defeating Bush doesn't come close to justifying their impeading or prolonging the war efforts.
A successful war protest that drove us to quit now would be catastrophic for Iraq, the middle east and ultimately for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers who would have to go back there a decade from now to defeat a new, stronger enemy.
All for what? So we could have John Kerry instead of Bush?!? So we can have a democrat in the White House?!
Are they really that full of themselves to not see they are crossing a line?
I predict if they don't change their tactics america will show them that we do understand the line they crossed and Bush will win by a large margin.
Senator Kennedy calling it "Bush's Vietnam" is absolutely dispicable and purely political, don't doubt for a minute he'll find a way to incorporate references to the photo's of dead soldiers into his next series of anti-Bush rantings.
One year into Vietnam we weren't even one quarter of the way into sacrificing 50,000 troops for no good reason.
One year into Iraq and we've defeated the enemy army, started rebuilding and are establishing a democratic government right in the middle of the middle east! And we've done so with minimal losses, around 500-600 troops total.
We still have much to do though to fight off all the thousands of foriegn insurgents and Bathist/Saddam loyalist who snipe from the shadows.
But no way can you honestly compare it to Vietnam.
The Bathist leftovers and terrorist insurgents we are fighting now would measure their success in watching us cut and run. That's why a united front from america would do wonders to reduce casulties and speed the transformation of Iraq into a free society that isn't ripe for warlords and religious fundamentalist to take over.
The anti-Bush crowd needs to understand they are playing with the lives of many good people when they play their little petty political games.
The goal of defeating Bush doesn't come close to justifying their impeading or prolonging the war efforts.
A successful war protest that drove us to quit now would be catastrophic for Iraq, the middle east and ultimately for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers who would have to go back there a decade from now to defeat a new, stronger enemy.
All for what? So we could have John Kerry instead of Bush?!? So we can have a democrat in the White House?!
Are they really that full of themselves to not see they are crossing a line?
I predict if they don't change their tactics america will show them that we do understand the line they crossed and Bush will win by a large margin.
I voted yes. The will to show such images is no more a politically-driven concern than is the desire to use censorship. War is ugly. Maybe it's about time armchair generals realized that.
I sense a rather consistent move by the right to censor any bit of negative sentiment about the war, as if to speak out against the war and against Bush is to speak out against America. This is not so, but it is the monochrome black/white world manufactured by Bush following the events of 9/11. Liberals are a hunted species. But this type of resentment is a by-product of the system we are in, dominated by Republicans. Their agenda passes through the government like diarrhea, without argument or debate.
The support was not and is still not unanimous for the war. There is still that significant 40%+ minority (1) that never supported the war in Iraq. But Bush resisted the criticism, plugged his ears, and took us to Iraq. In that sense, it is Bush's war and he is calling the shots. And, for that reason, negative events in the war will project unfavorably on Bush. Cry me a river. I have no sympathy for a man with a zealous volition and $120,000,000 to spend defending himself.
Vietnam? Vietnam is extreme. Hundreds of thousands died in Vietnam, exponentially more than have died in Iraq. Iraq is not Vietnam. They are similar in the respect that the enemy is similar. We are fighting a crude band of guerilla fighters with homebrew weapons and a thirst for blood. The second similarity is the sentiment toward keeping the war going to achieve a certain objective, seemingly at any cost. Course, these aspects are shared by countless other wars.
(1) = We can argue back and forth about the statistics because gaging the true proportions of what people thought about the war are impossible to collect accurately. But needless to say, there was a significant double-digit percentage of the population that did not support the war, however almost assuredly in the minority.
I sense a rather consistent move by the right to censor any bit of negative sentiment about the war, as if to speak out against the war and against Bush is to speak out against America. This is not so, but it is the monochrome black/white world manufactured by Bush following the events of 9/11. Liberals are a hunted species. But this type of resentment is a by-product of the system we are in, dominated by Republicans. Their agenda passes through the government like diarrhea, without argument or debate.
The support was not and is still not unanimous for the war. There is still that significant 40%+ minority (1) that never supported the war in Iraq. But Bush resisted the criticism, plugged his ears, and took us to Iraq. In that sense, it is Bush's war and he is calling the shots. And, for that reason, negative events in the war will project unfavorably on Bush. Cry me a river. I have no sympathy for a man with a zealous volition and $120,000,000 to spend defending himself.
Vietnam? Vietnam is extreme. Hundreds of thousands died in Vietnam, exponentially more than have died in Iraq. Iraq is not Vietnam. They are similar in the respect that the enemy is similar. We are fighting a crude band of guerilla fighters with homebrew weapons and a thirst for blood. The second similarity is the sentiment toward keeping the war going to achieve a certain objective, seemingly at any cost. Course, these aspects are shared by countless other wars.
Petty political games? I don't know about you, but I call cowering behind the "we must finish Iraq, so you must re-elect me" banner quite a political game. I call hiding the truth behind a selective reinstatement of the draft until post-election a political game. I call telling soldiers they will come home to see their families, only to send them right back into the hot zone for another six months of duty a political game.Will Robinson wrote:The anti-Bush crowd needs to understand they are playing with the lives of many good people when they play their little petty political games.
(1) = We can argue back and forth about the statistics because gaging the true proportions of what people thought about the war are impossible to collect accurately. But needless to say, there was a significant double-digit percentage of the population that did not support the war, however almost assuredly in the minority.
Yes. Using bash's reasoning, hiding such images is a conservative crusade to hide the casualties of what they view would be an otherwise unpopular war.
I think such images should definitely be allowed. If the public is to be trusted with supporting a war or not, they should be trusted with seeing images of it's aftermath. If the public has a problem with the images, and their support for war waivers, it is incumbent on the leadership to convince the public honestly, not by hiding negatives.
I think such images should definitely be allowed. If the public is to be trusted with supporting a war or not, they should be trusted with seeing images of it's aftermath. If the public has a problem with the images, and their support for war waivers, it is incumbent on the leadership to convince the public honestly, not by hiding negatives.
I apologize Bash, I was going to just drop the issue. I accept your criticisms for making it political so long as you also criticize those above.
I can't even imagine where the misguided claim that the left considers each fallen soldier a point in the political bucket comes from. Why do you think we were against the war? Just to be anti-Bush? Just to be on the other side? Wow, what devils we are in the right's eyes. No.
The left was against the war because of the lives that would be lost. Because we knew that this wasn't going to be a cake walk. I don't like that Americans die, I don't like that Iraqi's die. I don't like that this is a cause that Bush will ask some people I know to possibly die for!
I do not think that every diplomatic solution was tried. I do not like that we are telling another country the "right" way to live (I can live with this one). I do not like that the reasons we went were apparently untrue. While I admit that the war went much smoother then I had believed it would be, the post war situation in Iraq is much worst then I was expecting. I did buy into the Bush propaganda that once Sadamn had fallen the oppressed Iraqiâ??s would welcome us. We canâ??t even get them to fight with us, for themselves!
Any right wing individual that thinks the real democrats enjoy a fallen soldier has vastly misunderstood, and not even considered, where we are coming from and why we opposed the war in the first place.
Bash makes the connection of liberal websites who seem to indicate such, but they don't represent my side anymore then conservative websites who promote the KKK.
I can't even imagine where the misguided claim that the left considers each fallen soldier a point in the political bucket comes from. Why do you think we were against the war? Just to be anti-Bush? Just to be on the other side? Wow, what devils we are in the right's eyes. No.
The left was against the war because of the lives that would be lost. Because we knew that this wasn't going to be a cake walk. I don't like that Americans die, I don't like that Iraqi's die. I don't like that this is a cause that Bush will ask some people I know to possibly die for!
I do not think that every diplomatic solution was tried. I do not like that we are telling another country the "right" way to live (I can live with this one). I do not like that the reasons we went were apparently untrue. While I admit that the war went much smoother then I had believed it would be, the post war situation in Iraq is much worst then I was expecting. I did buy into the Bush propaganda that once Sadamn had fallen the oppressed Iraqiâ??s would welcome us. We canâ??t even get them to fight with us, for themselves!
Any right wing individual that thinks the real democrats enjoy a fallen soldier has vastly misunderstood, and not even considered, where we are coming from and why we opposed the war in the first place.
Bash makes the connection of liberal websites who seem to indicate such, but they don't represent my side anymore then conservative websites who promote the KKK.
The dead don't speak. Nor do they sign release agreements so thay can be paraded over the airwaves or on front pages. Over-exposing images of death is an emotional appeal. Contrast this to the outrage when pro-life loons hold up pictures of aborted fetii. The point is no rational discussion can take place when one side is continually parading death images. We all know that people die in war and there is no spacebar they can hit. Claiming the use of death images promotes honest debate is dishonest. It's a scare tactic, plain and simple. Its fearmongering and exploitation.
On the other side of the coin, look at Al-Jazeera's glee at showing death images. What is the result? Usually it's calling for revenge killing. Look at Fallujah. It's estimated that close to 1,000 Iraqis have died in the fighting brought about initially through the death of four Americans and the subsequent emotional impact those images had on America.
War is too important to be left to Generals and I would add it's also too important to be left to the media. Truth of the matter is we're in a difficult and costly undertaking in trying to get a fragile democracy rooted in the Middle East. If we're successful, odds are many of our current and future casualties will be reduced. In other words, the life we lose today could likely save thousands of lives down the road.
Those of you who see this as a good thing, where would you draw the line? There's a lot of ugliness to be shown from war. Should all censorship be removed? Also, consider the outrage some showed when Bush showed a single image from the WTC attack. Shouldn't we then be re-running those images of Americans leaping to their deaths to promote *honest* debate as to how we ended up in a war against terrorism? From an exposure point of view, you'd never guess 9/11 ever happened by looking to the media for reminders. At the current rate, it will take roughly another three years before the US military suffers the equivalent in casualties that American civilians suffered that day.
Over-exposing casualties, in my mind, serves no purpose but to appeal the the *flight* mechanisms inherent in all of us at a time when resolve requires we keep the *fight* mechanism engaged.
On the other side of the coin, look at Al-Jazeera's glee at showing death images. What is the result? Usually it's calling for revenge killing. Look at Fallujah. It's estimated that close to 1,000 Iraqis have died in the fighting brought about initially through the death of four Americans and the subsequent emotional impact those images had on America.
War is too important to be left to Generals and I would add it's also too important to be left to the media. Truth of the matter is we're in a difficult and costly undertaking in trying to get a fragile democracy rooted in the Middle East. If we're successful, odds are many of our current and future casualties will be reduced. In other words, the life we lose today could likely save thousands of lives down the road.
Those of you who see this as a good thing, where would you draw the line? There's a lot of ugliness to be shown from war. Should all censorship be removed? Also, consider the outrage some showed when Bush showed a single image from the WTC attack. Shouldn't we then be re-running those images of Americans leaping to their deaths to promote *honest* debate as to how we ended up in a war against terrorism? From an exposure point of view, you'd never guess 9/11 ever happened by looking to the media for reminders. At the current rate, it will take roughly another three years before the US military suffers the equivalent in casualties that American civilians suffered that day.
Over-exposing casualties, in my mind, serves no purpose but to appeal the the *flight* mechanisms inherent in all of us at a time when resolve requires we keep the *fight* mechanism engaged.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
I don't see anything dishonest or deceptive with Bush saying he wants to finish the job in Iraq and pointing out the fact that his opponents don't have the resolve to stick with it.Kyouryuu wrote:I don't know about you, but I call cowering behind the "we must finish Iraq, so you must re-elect me" banner quite a political game.
That's no game, in fact it's probably one of the few truthful campain promises he'll ever make!
How do you equate that with a U.S. Senator telling the world that Bush has lied to us and Iraq is the same as Vietnam?!?
I guess if I thought Bush didn't really have a reason to go into Iraq other than he thought it would give him a political victory I'd say you had a point.
But I'm convinced he's sincere in his belief that he's doing the right thing for the security of western civilization and his political future takes second priority to that mission.
I find some of the democrats rhetoric exposes them to have a different order of prioritys and that is where I feel they cross a line that should never be crossed.
-
TheCops
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: minneapolis, mn
- Contact:
some of you were touching yourselves at the image of sadam's sons with their heads blown open. you see images of bloodied israelis on an almost constant basis. i've seen images of a child with his limbs blown off by american bombs. i've seen infra-red video from a helicopter on this very dbb of the opposition in iraq getting removed from existence.
why are any of these images any different from seeing a US soldier that died? to be honest i've seen a lot of fire fights in the press but i haven't seen that many gory pictures of dead american soldiers. however, i've seen hours upon hours of the media showing off our military technology in all it's glory.
what are you typing about?
why are any of these images any different from seeing a US soldier that died? to be honest i've seen a lot of fire fights in the press but i haven't seen that many gory pictures of dead american soldiers. however, i've seen hours upon hours of the media showing off our military technology in all it's glory.
what are you typing about?
The images of Saddam's sons were broadcast to prove to the Iraqis that indeed these men were dead because Arab media was claiming it was false. As far as the other media images you're talking about, I haven't seen them. Granted, I don't own a television so that might limit my exposure a bit. The only death images that come to recent memory has been the four contractors in Fallujah and I believe the fallout from the emotional reaction to those images was not good, even if we did make significant gains militarily. I'm opposed to all gore or exploitation of the dead, friend or foe. The war has a purpose and it's not as a running bodycount tally or a way to appeal to base instincts or morbid curiosities.
-
TheCops
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: minneapolis, mn
- Contact:
in regards to sadam's sons... that's a practical point i had not considered, thanx for the correction.bash wrote:The images of Saddam's sons were broadcast to prove to the Iraqis that indeed these men were dead because Arab media was claiming it was false. As far as the other images you're talking about, I haven't seen them. The only brutality that comes to recent memory has been the four contractors in Fallujah and I would agree with you that the fallout from the emotional reaction to those images was not good, even if we did make significant gains against Iraqis and others opposed to democracy.
what does america have 140,000 soldiers in iraq? 700 deaths of americans? with my windows 98 calculator that makes 0.005% deaths in a year. without disrespecting the families that are missing members, that's un-real. like a history making route.
but kids are dieing. minnesota lost 3 guys in 2 weeks they were from some county. they were all like 18 or 19. i couldn't help but think of my life as a 19 year old and how grand it was. it made me cry, for real. i was having cheap sex and pretending i was a musician when i was 19.
i just don't see this grand conspiracy from the left. i read google news all day... and i watch fox local in the morning. fox does it's best to insult my intelligence.
where is this grand conspiracy? on the democratic underground message board? i wouldn't read that ★■◆●.
what are you typing about?
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Should the media be allowed to produce pictures of a dead person who was *not* killed in war (say, a drive-by shooting victim) without permission from next-of-kin? Should they be able to photograph the body, or even the casket, without permission?
My own thought here is that they shouldn't. I don't care who the person is or was -- you shouldn't go taking pictures of their dead body or their casket without permission from the next-of-kin, and you DEFINITELY shouldn't put those pictures on the news. Even if it's a celebrity like Princess Di or JFK, the media shouldn't be allowed to publish or air photos of the body or casket without permission. The same should be true for mass graves being unearthed, or whatever. Unless there's some hugely compelling reason to show such a thing... just don't do it.
I think this should extend to war. Yeah, war is messy, and people die. But then, people die in plain old everyday life too. In neither case should the media intrude. It's their job to report -- but they can report without showing us pictures of the dead.
My own thought here is that they shouldn't. I don't care who the person is or was -- you shouldn't go taking pictures of their dead body or their casket without permission from the next-of-kin, and you DEFINITELY shouldn't put those pictures on the news. Even if it's a celebrity like Princess Di or JFK, the media shouldn't be allowed to publish or air photos of the body or casket without permission. The same should be true for mass graves being unearthed, or whatever. Unless there's some hugely compelling reason to show such a thing... just don't do it.
I think this should extend to war. Yeah, war is messy, and people die. But then, people die in plain old everyday life too. In neither case should the media intrude. It's their job to report -- but they can report without showing us pictures of the dead.
If that is my logic, why is it that every casualty is informed to the media via press release with their bio and photograph if the Bush admin is *hiding* the negative? Is that information not good enough for you and you see a reason to play Show & Tell with the bodies? I'd like to know that reason.Using bash's reasoning, hiding such images is a conservative crusade to hide the casualties of what they view would be an otherwise unpopular war.
Sigh. Let's try this again, with emphasis for the blind:Will Robinson wrote:How do you equate that with a U.S. Senator telling the world that Bush has lied to us and Iraq is the same as Vietnam?!?.
Vietnam? Vietnam is extreme. Hundreds of thousands died in Vietnam, exponentially more than have died in Iraq. Iraq is not Vietnam. They are similar in the respect that the enemy is similar. We are fighting a crude band of guerilla fighters with homebrew weapons and a thirst for blood. The second similarity is the sentiment toward keeping the war going to achieve a certain objective, seemingly at any cost. Course, these aspects are shared by countless other wars.
We're looking at coffins draped with the American flag here to commemorate those who have fallen in battle. What're you smoking to suggest these equate to bloodied baby embryos?bash wrote:Contrast this to the outrage when pro-life loons hold up pictures of aborted fetii.
I'm not seeing the vast leftist conspiracy here, or how these coffins are any more or less anti-war than, say, the Vietnam Memorial monument is. War has a cost. Its cost is hundreds of men and women younger than I am dying for a cause. And yet the chicken hawks want to gloss over this fact and censor anything that depicts the death or harm to an American soldier? Fancy that.
Funny thing about those who are agitated about it - the more you complain and yell, the more the pictures spread around.
Then you might as well call the Vietnam Memorial a giant wall of death and censor that too. We wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about war, would we?
It's funny how the right has no faith in America's citizens to see the merit in showing these pictures, that they have to be protected from them out of paranoid fear that it will hurt support for the war. We need to honor the fallen. They are not just some faceless number on an ever-growing counter. Part of this is our patriotic ritual for how we prepare the coffins for burial.
As the person who originally took the pictures saw it, it was a moving portrait into how much we care for the dead. The insurgents we battle have no care for death. They lie sprawled out in the streets, desert flies buzzing around them and maggots festering. We, on the other hand, are proud of those who sacrificed themselves, as we should be. They are a million times braver than you or I and they selflessly gave their lives to give others a better chance at it. That's what makes us different from our enemy. We care about life. And when life is lost, we do not forget those who perished.
It's funny how the right has no faith in America's citizens to see the merit in showing these pictures, that they have to be protected from them out of paranoid fear that it will hurt support for the war. We need to honor the fallen. They are not just some faceless number on an ever-growing counter. Part of this is our patriotic ritual for how we prepare the coffins for burial.
As the person who originally took the pictures saw it, it was a moving portrait into how much we care for the dead. The insurgents we battle have no care for death. They lie sprawled out in the streets, desert flies buzzing around them and maggots festering. We, on the other hand, are proud of those who sacrificed themselves, as we should be. They are a million times braver than you or I and they selflessly gave their lives to give others a better chance at it. That's what makes us different from our enemy. We care about life. And when life is lost, we do not forget those who perished.
There are protocols for honoring the dead and there are memorials erected to do so where they can be afforded the solemnity and respect they have earned and deserve. It's a very difficult time for families and a very private time unless they choose to make it public.
I wish we could get some input from some veterans because I feel they above all others have a unique insight and should have the final say into how they would wish their remains respected.
I wish we could get some input from some veterans because I feel they above all others have a unique insight and should have the final say into how they would wish their remains respected.
Sadly rhetorical as it may be, since I'm not sure if any frequent the board. I don't exactly know how I'd feel about it because it depends on the context. It's nice to be remembered in some way. And, if the original story is believed, the picture was done not with anti-war sentiment, but as a reminder of America's unwavering respect for its bravest defenders. In that sense, there is a patriotism to the whole affair.
On the other hand, if it were some crazed anti-war demonstration group that bursted into the plane like paparazzis, shot the images, and sold them for a healthy profit (in gritty monochrome for emphasis), then I'd be liable to get out of the coffin and strangle them with my cold, dead hands.
On the other hand, if it were some crazed anti-war demonstration group that bursted into the plane like paparazzis, shot the images, and sold them for a healthy profit (in gritty monochrome for emphasis), then I'd be liable to get out of the coffin and strangle them with my cold, dead hands.
Speaking of protocols, there's an interesting story in the NYT today (do a search there if interested) about the homecoming the Japanese hostages received. In a nutshell, they were scorned and shunned. I found it quite illuminating the degree of emphasis the Japanese put upon group effort and a united front.
Should the media be permitted to reproduce images of US war dead at its own descretion? - Bash
well yeah, coz it stops the army from making more "war-dead" at it's own discretion.
frankly you should always have an explanation for every death. every life is sacred.
faceless statistics scare the ★■◆● outta me. because it cheapens death.
death is a serious thing. and in the end everyone seems to agree on this when they look death in the face
.
well yeah, coz it stops the army from making more "war-dead" at it's own discretion.
frankly you should always have an explanation for every death. every life is sacred.
faceless statistics scare the ★■◆● outta me. because it cheapens death.
death is a serious thing. and in the end everyone seems to agree on this when they look death in the face
.-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
/me thinks this blind man see's more than you!Kyouryuu wrote:Sigh. Let's try this again, with emphasis for the blind.... [/i]
The fact that the fighters we face today use similar weapons to those used by the vietnamese is not the point Sen.Kennedy et al are trying to scare americans with.
The second one is the one inquestion:
"The second similarity is the sentiment toward keeping the war going to achieve a certain objective, seemingly at any cost."
The notion that Iraq is the same as Vietnam because it will 'go on forever' and tens of thusands will die is not true and therefore it is a political game played at the expense of our soldiers lives.
Will we press on until we 'achieve a certain objective' yes, but unlike vietnam the objective is being reached and an end is in sight.
If you don't see the politics behind trying to squeeze the success in Iraq into the mold of the Vietnam failure...
If you don't see the difference between Bush stating his policy and promising to stick to it regardless of how it hurts him politically versus Kennedy misrepresenting reality to achieve a political objective...
Well then I don't think there is any point in trying to discuss it further.
I think the blind man see's more than you though.
On further thought, I think I have to agree with Kyourou and others on the privacy thing--it doesn't seem to me that a nameless shot of a coffin is invading anyone's privacy. I don't know though--I'm not a journalist, and if there are normally accepted journalistic standards around reporting deaths, then of course they should be followed.
I do think it's dispicable to see people try to make political hay out of soldiers' deaths, and I do agree that the pictures over-emotionalize it. Really, the papers out here in Seattle have been pretty bad about that, making front page headlines out of every hangnail and stubbed toe in Iraq, and that does annoy me--especially since it's misleading. (I imagine Seattle would look like a pretty depressing place too, if every death made front page headlines...)
Much as it disgusts me, though, they should certainly be able to do it. And if there aren't normal journalistic standards being broken by showing pictures, they ought to be able to do that as well. Rather than call it illegal, I'd like to think they're digging their own grave by twisting truth like that.
I do think it's dispicable to see people try to make political hay out of soldiers' deaths, and I do agree that the pictures over-emotionalize it. Really, the papers out here in Seattle have been pretty bad about that, making front page headlines out of every hangnail and stubbed toe in Iraq, and that does annoy me--especially since it's misleading. (I imagine Seattle would look like a pretty depressing place too, if every death made front page headlines...)
Much as it disgusts me, though, they should certainly be able to do it. And if there aren't normal journalistic standards being broken by showing pictures, they ought to be able to do that as well. Rather than call it illegal, I'd like to think they're digging their own grave by twisting truth like that.
Sorry, Rican. Didn't mean to upset you. I'm not responsible for Sen. Kennedy's context or intended meaning of his words, but to argue with you is horribly futile. I'd rather talk to a brick wall.
I don't know with the British story is, but Japan is in a time of turmoil after all. The economy is still flaky with no real signs of a recovery and the government stalemated on what to do about the problem. They also have the declining employment figures we do (for the same reasons we do). No doubt many Japanese think that efforts should be allocated toward these issues rather than a war. You have to understand that even if Al Queda might have gotten to them one day, it hasn't. Ergo, the Japanese can't share the same emotions we do about fighting it.
I think we owe thanks to Koizumi and Blair though for standing behind their allies for what they feel was right, even if it was unpopular. It was a political sacrifice. It's a shame the world at large didn't follow their lead. If we were all united against this threat, and marched in there an intimidating million strong, would we even have to deal with this nonsense we're fighting today? It's worth pointing out that in Desert Storm, 500,000 soldiers were involved. Today in an occupation mission - a fundamentally more complex mission - there stand merely 130,000 troops from a high of 250,000.
Prime Minister Koizumi is a lot like Prime Minister Blair. Both supported a war that was generally unpopular among their constituencies, and both will probably pay dearly for it in the coming elections.bash wrote: I found it quite illuminating the degree of emphasis the Japanese put upon group effort and a united front.
I don't know with the British story is, but Japan is in a time of turmoil after all. The economy is still flaky with no real signs of a recovery and the government stalemated on what to do about the problem. They also have the declining employment figures we do (for the same reasons we do). No doubt many Japanese think that efforts should be allocated toward these issues rather than a war. You have to understand that even if Al Queda might have gotten to them one day, it hasn't. Ergo, the Japanese can't share the same emotions we do about fighting it.
I think we owe thanks to Koizumi and Blair though for standing behind their allies for what they feel was right, even if it was unpopular. It was a political sacrifice. It's a shame the world at large didn't follow their lead. If we were all united against this threat, and marched in there an intimidating million strong, would we even have to deal with this nonsense we're fighting today? It's worth pointing out that in Desert Storm, 500,000 soldiers were involved. Today in an occupation mission - a fundamentally more complex mission - there stand merely 130,000 troops from a high of 250,000.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
For those of you who have continued this discussion, please take a moment to answer the question I posed above:
Should the media be able to reproduce shots of any other person's dead body and/or casket, if the family hasn't given them permission? Under what circumstances do you find that acceptable, and under what circumstances do you find it unacceptable?
Should the media be able to reproduce shots of any other person's dead body and/or casket, if the family hasn't given them permission? Under what circumstances do you find that acceptable, and under what circumstances do you find it unacceptable?