Hide The Dead Soldiers!

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 04:39 AM

but then again, it was not another country imposing democracy on either George Washington or Benjamin Franklin.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 04:04 AM

I'll ignore that, perhaps it wasn't meant to be rude.

Democracy in Iraq? as I once posted before the invasion, probably not a snowball's chance in hell.....but miracles do happen. Formal education necessary in order to understand the principles of the system? Tell that to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:12 AM

Metchosin - you don't have to beg.

I would, however, appreciate a few more statistics.

A primary education does not necessarily mean you are literate. Nor does training in science and technology mean that you are prepared to make decisions regarding democracy when you have never experienced democracy. How many Iraqis have a liberal arts education? How many have studied history? How many even know the difference between church and state?

So 100% attended primary school 20 years ago. How many of those actually graduated from high school? Perhaps you can provide the percentage of Iraqis who actually achieved a grade eight education. Or maybe the percentage of highly trained in the entire population.

I, too, hope that the Iraqis will be able to make a democracy of their own but ... how long do you expect foreigners to occupy their land in order for this to be possible? ...and do you really think the Bushites will allow this?

We already know that you cannot impose your values on another culture without destroying the culture. Imposing democracy on Iraq is just a nice way of committing cultural genocide.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 10:06 PM

Perhaps a way to avoid being treated like an ignorant slob would be to stop behaving as an ignorant slob?

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 01:10 PM

Our criteria is what makes it so unlikely that it will succeed.
The Iraqi people need to determine what kind of gov't they will have because they sure as hell don't trust us to do it for them. And isn't that what democracy is about? Deciding for themselves?
We won't accept a Shi'ite state based on Shariah law, we won't accept a gov't formed by the other muslim sects based on their ideological view of shariah either. The funny thing is that although Saddam was a tyrant, mass murderer and all around evil dude, his secular gov't was probably the closest those folks have ever come to a "democracy". Without his secular gov't they are likely to start more inter-religeous warfare as they stake their claim to the state.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:16 PM

We are there, can not change that, so why not do what we can to give the country a shot at it?


That is the only redeeming aspect of the whole mess, Steve, and well said. I am sadly doubtful that this perspective will escape the miserable politicization of our spinmeisters and string pullers. I mean, the system they evolve in Iraq has to meet our criteria or it won't be an acceptable system. But I can cross my fingers and pray.

A

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:07 PM

dianavan - I don't know about what people are capable of. I just know that I need to have faith and hope that the people will make the government into their own. It may not be exactly like ours, it may not be anything remotely close, but I believe that what they ahd was worse than anything we have (or ever had).

A lot of people have come to this country for the opportunities. The least we can do for those folks is offer them an opportunity. We did that for Japan, Germany, and dozens of others over the years and they seem to have made it work for them.

So if the past is any indicator - well I believe that the future is also possible. Railing against that possibility is quitting in my opinion. We are there, can not change that, so why not do what we can to give the country a shot at it?

And having family and friends in Iraq I struggle with the "innocent civilians" being the ones killed. Not true. Simply a blatant lie by some to sway an opinion of others. Many of the people killed over there are extremist Muslims from other countries that have come to stop any change in their fundamentalist view of how the country ought to be run.

And I'm not of the opinion that civilians have not been killed. That's occurred in every conflict since history. I do believe that the majority of our military are doing their level best, as they always have, to avoid those deaths. I think we need to remember that the people fighting over there, on both sides for the most part, are fighting for what they believe and taking the best care to not involve "civilians" or non-military in the actions.

The terrorists don't care who they kill - they are indiscriminate murderers and should be killed for what they are doing.

Just my .01 worth

Steve

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 11:00 AM

"Not exactly- the fans referred to in the NASCAR threa, behaving like mindless assholes exemplify those 'mores of the good old United States of America'."

Thank goodness there's no class division in the US. Guess this falls under liberal elitism, then. Perhaps if the right (left?) candidate tells them how they should behave, they will have see the light and vote the right (left?) way. People always respond well to being treated like ignorant slobs by people who don't understand or respect them. Yep, that's the way to win the South back. :D

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 08:02 AM

Not exactly- the fans referred to in the NASCAR threa, behaving like mindless assholes exemplify those "mores of the good old United States of America".

More's the pity.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 11:33 PM

"What makes you think Iraq will be able to maintain a democracy? They do not have the experience or the education."

Dianavan, I beg to differ with you, Iraq may not have had experience with democracy, as we like to believe it should be, but the Iraqi people were hardly without education and training,

"At the beginning of the 1980s Iraq had one of the best education systems in the Arab world. Gross Enrollment Rate for primary schooling was around 100%. The Higher Education, especially the scientific and technological institutions were of international standard, staffed by high quality personnel. " UN information

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:46 PM

Here is site with photos and descriptions of the fallen American soldiers.


Faces Of Valor

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:17 PM

Dianavan's point is well taken. It is true that democracy is something all people are inherently capable of in theory, there's no assurance that any given group of people will know how to handfle it whne given one they did not invent for themselves.

A

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: flattop
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:10 PM

No one wants to look to closely when wars aren't going hunky-dory. No normal human would want to look.

Either Albert Speer's surprisingly readable book, Inside the Third Reich, or the Decline of the Third Reich book talked about Hitler having dinner in a train car when another train full of wounded soldiers pulled up beside him. As they stared, Hitler stood up and closed the curtain.

We wouldn't want to put Bush off his dinner, would we?

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:31 PM

Steve - Look at whats happened to the voting population in the States - you said it yourself - apathy. What makes you think Iraq will be able to maintain a democracy? They do not have the experience or the education. I'm not sure if they even have the will. Why do you think we can impose a political structure on another country?

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:23 PM

"...where, ... the indigenous population lack the self-discipline or restraint to conduct themselves"

Funny, this makes me think of how some people with a particular perspective talk about fans in the NASCAR thread. :D

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:16 PM

"Bring democracy to Iraq?" Complete and utter Bullshit.

This is about justifying a U.S. military presence and intervention anywhere in the world where, in the opinion of the U.S. political classes (i.e. the rich), the indigenous population lack the self-discipline or restraint to conduct themselves
according to the mores of the good old United States of America.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:37 PM

And if you want images of the wounded - pick up any copy of the VFW magazine over the past six months. Lots of pictures of men with their arms and legs missing.

Part of the cost we ALL bear. The President represents the people. And what he/she does happens in our name. I think that the apathetic public is more responsible than anyone else. Barely a fourth vote, less than that actually have a clue about the options or the candidates real position on the issues.

So I reckon I'm with Chief - "We have to decide. All of America has to decide if the cost of bringing democracy to Iraq is worth it." I think it is.

But then again I'm just a whiney old Veteran.

Steve

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:24 PM

There is a price to be paid for war.
It is above and beyond the cost of materials and weaponry.
It is far beyond the sacrifices endured by the many so that the few can have what they need to continue the fight.
It is not expressed in dollars and cents but in the flag draped coffins of loved ones lost.
The balance is in weighing the outcome against this cost and determining if this cost is too high.
This is what the pres. is afraid of. No-one, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independant need make any commercial for "political" gain.
The Pres. is responsible for the war. The buck stops there on his desk. Each flag draped coffin is a check to his power that he is not prepared nor willing to pay. And so it remains a hidden cost. Displayed only with a photo of the lost one, proudly in uniform or smiling at the camera. Remembered the way that some would like us to remember them in life, rather than in death for the latter is a much more compelling image.
We have to decide. all of America has to decide if the cost of bringing democracy to Iraq is worth it.
And I have not heard from any family complaining that they were upset about the photos being shown.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 12:27 PM

if Bush supporters dont mind BUsh ads showing flag covered caskets being hauled out of the wtc site - purely for political purposes - then have no problem with banning the media from showing same images of caskets of dead soldiers from Iraq - they are not just being hypocritical. That's already a given. They are in favor of suppressing the truth and sanitizing the war.

Because were not talking about some Democratic ads showing coffins
were talking about them being shown at all to the American public.

Leno was right, Iraq needs a new constitution, they can have ours- we're not using it right now anyway.

even in the 91 gulf war - when media access was tightly restricted
some general said - 'hey you guys lost us the war in vietnam'

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 11:53 AM

GUEST 26 Apr 04 - 12:19 AM

"sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children."

Utter crap Guest, those figures were based on very shakey projections, not on any study, not on any facts - so read the findings of the WHO.

Other factors that were not taken into account:
- The draining of the Southern Marshes
- What Saddam could not drain he poisoned
- Physical displacement of up to 900,000 Marsh Arabs by Saddam
- Saddam's punitive attacks against the Southern Shia population in the wake of "Desert Storm"

All the above I suggest would have a negative effect on childbirth statistics for the region.

Over the same period I take it that you will attribute the growth in the population of Iraq from 18.1 million to just over 23.3 million to US actions and UN sanctions?

"we can't possibly put all the blame on Saddam, as after the Iraq war, he and Iraq were broke, and the country's infrastructure was in shambles."

But he found the where-with-all to build, what was it? Seventeen Presidential Palaces, and purchase, what was it? 384 rocket engines for his missile programme - no mean feat under the rigorous sanction regime in place at the time - Eh?

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:19 PM

There was no problem during WWII about pictures of the war dead coming home, being published. Or even about the burial of thousands of them in a foreign country.
If it is a 'just war', the problem should never arise.

Jim

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 10:05 AM

Now I'm curious what the impact of UN sanctions was on the other 13 countries that received them:

Afghanistan
Angola
Eritrea and Ethiopia
Haiti
Liberia
Libya
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Southern Rhodesia
Sudan
The former Yugoslavia

Sanctions are after all a form of seige warfare that is inherently aimed at the civilian population whatever anyone says. The military, rich and well connected in any country will get what they need. It's always the poor and powerless that suffer.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:56 AM

Sanctions were issued in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US felt that sanctions would not be effective quickly enough and can hardly be blamed for imposing them in the first place. Yes, Iraq suffered the consequences of war in 1991. You think that Saddam was perfectly innocent and had nothing to do with any of that?

As you point out, Saddam alone had control over when the sanctions were lifted. All he had to do with comply with UN resolutions. You expect any nation to pay for rebuilding a country that doesn't comply with the provisions of a ceasefire or UN resolutions like this?

As you point out, Saddam refused to take advantage of it. When he did accept a food-for-oil program 5 years later, he skimmed proceeds from the humanitarian aid for his own purposes. You know that the countries participating in the food-for-oil program were alleged to be involved in corruption, too. US News and World Reports estimates at least $10 billion went into the corruption, not the Iraqi people who needed it.

The vast majority of the oil from this program went to well connected companies in France and Russia. Saddam controlled its distribution and not much if any of it made it to the US. Iraq never gave "us" their oil at all. It went to Saddam's closest friends and allies whose greed matched his.

The common element in all these events, the one person who had the opportunity prevent them or ease their impact. You sound as if you want to absolve the murder because his actions prompted harsh responses even though he could have avoided them.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:51 AM

Thanks for the reference to the Lancet article, Guest, I had often wondered where the "cutback" on the original numbers came from.

I think one of the big problems in this whole situation was the misperception that Iraq was a rural country, when something like 70% of the country is urban, and had (at least until the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's) a Baathist regime with socialist aims -- something like Cuba, though of course more vicious. If you destroy infrastructure in urban societies, the mortality rates skyrocket -- just as they would if we had a blackout for two or three weeks across North America. Urban areas are so fragile when the basic services collapse. I think the Americans learned that the second time around, which is why the damage last year was relatively minimal, but the first time around was a disaster.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 08:06 AM

To clarify this again, the sanctions were put on Iraq after we had bombed the country back into the stone age, and then didn't provide any aid to rebuild. No matter how much money the oil for food program poured into the country, those children weren't dying just because Saddam had his fingers in the cookie jar. They were dying because there was never any post-war effort to help Iraq rebuild.

As my excerpt from an excellent article about the sanctions states clearly, we can't possibly put all the blame on Saddam, as after the Iraq war, he and Iraq were broke, and the country's infrastructure was in shambles. Because Shrub I and Clinton never requested funds for the rebuilding of Iraq, but left the sanctions in place and the country in a shambles, the child mortality rate skyrocketed. Money was given in the oil for food program for the most cynical of reasons don't forget. We gave them a little food, withheld medicines and health care, and they gave us their oil.

In other words, the Shrub I & II administrations, along with the Clinton administration, used the same "sell or starve" tactics with the Iraqis that 19th century American presidents used with our country's Native American population, to bring them onto the reservations, and conquer them once and for all. Bring 'em to the fort, give 'em just enough food to keep them alive until winter, when you give them blankets, and then ignore them while they starve AND freeze to death. Then you burn down the disease and pest infested "housing" you put them in, and open up Indian country for settlement by Eur-Ams and American business.

Some things never change. Sure, you all can do what will assuage the guilty consciences of Europe, the US, and the Arab world, and blame Saddam for all those deaths. But the Iraqis know better.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:15 AM

dianavan, but the people imposing sanctions were doing their diplomatic best. The theory was that sanctions were better than war and would achieve the same results. It's clear that wasn't true.

I don't mean to be argumentative this time, but I have a hard time understanding what you said about Afghanistan just now. You'll see my post in another thread you're active in. I won't ever forget what I saw happening in that soccer field any more than I'll be able to forget the real result sanctions achieved in Iraq. It seems obvious that I come to a different conclusion about the least of all these evils.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:07 AM

Actually Strick, I blame Saddam for the mortality rate due to sanctions. It makes me sick, too.

I also blame Bush for invading Afghanistan in pusuit of a band of thugs and for lying about the weapons of mass destruction and for invading Iraq without U.N. support. He is to blame for all the deaths due to war.

I don't have any answers, Strick. I just wish that the politicians who are paid to do the job, would use a little more diplomacy.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:28 AM

"But you're right Amos. Even the most recent studies by Garfield, estimate approximately 350,000 child deaths through 2000. And while most of these deaths are associated with sanctions, not all of them can be laid at the door of the UN."

Amos, using the under 5 mortality numbers UNICEF found in a 1999 survey and birth rates from the CIA fact book, you get numbers that suggest Garfield's estimates are very conservative. The mortality rates for women in childbirth were up dramatically during the same years, too. I'm in shock. I can't comprehend the numbers.

This suggests that sanctions, at least when you're up against someone as insensitive to the suffering of his people as Saddam, are not a useful alternative to war. Their main victims are the innocent, those least able to defend themselves. These children died while Saddam got fatter and built more palaces. So much for resolving our differences with peaceful means.

I'm sick with grief over this. I take back what I said. I realize most people here are only following their conscience in regard to the photos. I do think some people are only in it for political gain, many of the loudest voices do want us to think things are as bad as possible to make them, but I don't believe, I never believed any of you were that way. I still don't believe these photos should be made public without the permission of the families, but I apologize for the way I said the things I said.

Now I can only hope the Iraqis get the finest prosecuting attorney available for Saddam. Most of you won't agree, but I put all these deaths at his door.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:38 AM

Sanctions killed children because Saddham chose to continue amassing a fortune instead of letting the money to go social services as it was intended.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:30 AM

I suspect you are leaving out some of the facts, Nameless One. But I don't remember which ones and do not have time to pursue it right now, sorry.

A

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:29 AM

I really don't feel I owe anyone an apology. At least some of the most ardent supporters of releasing these photos do so only because they hope to create a backlash like there was against the Vietnam war. They don't care about the people affected, they only want that result. The perception many of us have is that the anyone-but-Bush-crowd needs as much bad news as possible to have any hope of defeating him and will go out of their way to find it or manufacture it. It is wholely unappealing and only reinforces the polarization of the country. We see these numbers everyday; we know the truth and sadness, the reality of the deaths they represent.

GUEST, since "right wing" is anyone who doesn't automatically adopt the dominant left-of-the-Clintons ideology of this forum, I'm flattered by you comments. After the bizarre way you terminated our exchange on "Why Don't Christians Celebrate Passover" thread, I'm counting on you keeping your promise not to respond in the future.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:19 AM

I don't know where the hell you get that idea Amos. Republicrat propagandists, undoubtedly.

Among authorities who know what they are talking about, there has never been any question that sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of children. The only question was how accurate the numbers were, that came from several studies of those mortality statistics.

The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. In the US, the NY Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers.

According to The Nation:

"A January 1996 letter to The Lancet found inconsistencies in the mortality figures. A follow-up study in 1996, using the same methodology, found much lower rates of child mortality. In October 1997 the authors of the initial letter wrote again to The Lancet, this time reporting that mortality rates in the follow-up study were "several-fold lower than the estimate for 1995--for unknown reasons." While the initial report of more than 567,000 deaths attracted major news coverage, the subsequent disavowal of those numbers passed unnoticed in the press.

The two most reliable scientific studies on sanctions in Iraq are the 1999 report "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children," by Columbia University's Richard Garfield, and "Sanctions and Childhood Mortality in Iraq," a May 2000 article by Mohamed Ali and Iqbal Shah in The Lancet. Garfield, an expert on the public-health impact of sanctions, conducted a comparative analysis of the more than two dozen major studies that have analyzed malnutrition and mortality figures in Iraq during the past decade. He estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000. Garfield's analysis showed child mortality rates double those of the previous decade."

But you're right Amos. Even the most recent studies by Garfield, estimate approximately 350,000 child deaths through 2000. And while most of these deaths are associated with sanctions, not all of them can be laid at the door of the UN.

The rest of them are laid on the doorstep of the US, who was responsible for killing thousands more children in the Shrub I administration's ferocious bombing campaign of Iraq during the first Gulf War, destroying the country's infrastructure, and the continuing bombing campaigns of the Clinton administration.

There is no doubt hundreds of thousands of lives might have been spared if Saddam had been more cooperative, and brought sanctions to an end. The oil-for-food program was never intended to be, and did not provide, the needed economic stimulus that alone could end the crisis in Iraq. But it was a bona fide effort by the Security Council to relieve humanitarian suffering. If the government of Iraq had accepted the program when it was first proposed, much of the suffering that occurred in the intervening years could have been avoided.

But I'm guessing all those particulars are cold comfort to the parents who lost children to malnourishment and preventable diseases while we punished Saddam for weapons of mass destruction it turns out he didn't have after all.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:14 AM

Not only children in Iraq. Children in Afghanistan, too.

The U.S. never count the children or the women or the elderly.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:01 AM

Namelss:

It is debatable whether those deaths shopuld be laid at the door of UN Sanctions, or at the door of the Hussein power structure.

A

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:33 PM

Thanks Guest pdc and pdq for pointing out my mistake. Guest pdc is correct in pointing out my remarks about no longer responding, were directed towards Strick.

Guest 7:29, I do share your outrage. I also just started this thread:

US poised to attack Najaf & Falluja

The US and Britain have long since lost the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq, and honestly, I don't think they ever intended to win them. After all, it was Clinton's secretary of state, Madeline Albright, who when confronted with estimated number of child deaths (now estimated to have been at least a quarter of a million children) due to UN sanctions against Iraq in 1996, replied coldly: "The price is worth it."

Madeline Albright also was instrumental in the US refusal to provide any aid whatsoever to Rwanda during the genocide we easily could have stopped, and probably prevented.

So, considering the fact that the Clinton foreign policy was so murderous, just what do you suppose we should expect from Bush/Cheney? Nothing better, that is for sure. They've already killed thousands of Iraqi children since the invasion.

But hey--the US military doesn't count civilian casualties. And why should they? Most Americans could care less how many Iraqi children have died as a result of our wars on Iraq, then and now.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 09:07 PM

Interesting perspective, GUEST 7:29 PM. For a more balanced point of view, here is the news from Al-Jazeera.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 07:29 PM

Dead soldiers, hell. How did we come to THIS??

Four children shot dead in Iraq: witnesses

Four schoolchildren have been killed by gunfire in Baghdad, shortly after a roadside bomb ripped through a US military vehicle, witnesses said.

Some witnesses said the children, all aged around 12, were shot dead by US troops WHO HAD OPENED FIRE RANDOMLY after the blast on Canal Street in eastern Baghdad. At least five other people were wounded.

The children had left their nearby school to look at the burning Humvee, the witnesses said.

Children and some passersby were "celebrating" the attack near the vehicle when the deadly shots were fired.

The US military had no immediate word on the incident.

"I saw a child lying on the street with a bullet hole in his neck and another in his side," said a driver who witnessed the incident.

"He had his schoolbag on his back. Some 15 minutes later his relatives came and took his body away."

A nearby hospital confirmed receiving the bodies of four children with gunshot wounds.

---

What are Americans becoming? How do those soldiers live the rest of their lives, after behaving like war criminals? Why the hell are we still hearing rhetoric on bringing peace and democracy to Iraq?

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:00 PM

Flag draped coffins

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM

I believe I should change my monicker, as it is not the first time that someone has confused me with pdq. The "do not respond" was aimed at Strick, however, pdq, and I believe he deserves indeed to be killfiled. His perspective is small, mean and sour.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: pdq
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:31 PM

Dear GUEST (11.12)...I am pdq, I am a he, and also a member...pdc is a she and, at the present time, has GUEST status. You show a great deal of passion in tour arguments. That is a trait which is in short supply among many Americans and most politicians.

I do not believe I have earned the "never respond to" status, if that statement was meant for me.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Janie
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:12 PM

Hummmm..... Oh well. The new thread is titled as dianavan suggested "Reconstruction in Iraq."

Sorry to clutter this thread.

Janie

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Janie
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:11 PM

I think your right, dianavan. Here's the link to the new thread.
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=69170&messages=1

Janie

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:52 PM

"The interpretation is up to the viewer."

If we are allowed to view the photographs.

There are actually two instances of photographs being published last week that showed the coffins. The first was a photograph taken by a photographer who is working with a private contractor in Kuwait, I think. The photograph you are probably refering to ranger1, is that one, which was published for the first time on the front page of last Sunday's Seattle Times. The employee who took the photograph was fired for violating the Pentagon rule of not allowing the coffins to be photographed and published.

The other instance was the Pentagon itself released 350 photographs due to a Freedom of Information Act request they couldn't legally deny. Those photographs were released by the Pentagon last week, and were first published on the internet.

The Seattle Times made the editorial decision to publish the photograph because they felt an important story could be told by doing so. It just so happens the message of that story is also what most would consider a story with a patriotic angle to it. They felt that most people, including the families and loved ones of fallen soldiers, would be deeply moved by the reverence with which the bodies were cared for on their journey home.

Only a sick, right wing political opportunist could twist that into "the leftie liberals are using these photos as anti-war propaganda" sort of thing.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: ranger1
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:32 PM

I saw a picture on the front page of the newspaper on Friday of the flag-draped coffins. It made me cry. It wasn't a picture in bad taste, I didn't find it political, and I don't see how flag-draped coffins can be considered "human remains." The remains are inside, and anonymous. It was, to me, a reminder that in war some people end up paying the ultimate price and that in each one of those coffins lay someone's cherished relative who paid that price. The picture I saw caused me to stop and reflect on the families who have lost loved ones and on the lives cut short. I felt it honored the fallen without having to make a statement about the war. The interpretation is up to the viewer.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:12 AM

Strick is a right wing apologist, whom I usually ignore. But after those comments above, I'm with Guest PDQ. He is on my official "never respond to" list now.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 09:57 AM

Making politics out of misery? Let's talk about creating abysmal misery for political purposes!! And whether that should be exposed or not.

Ya know what causes me misery? Waking up to realize our suystem has been so vioently suborned that we now have a dramatizing psycho in a suit in the Oval Office.

In WW II the coffins came home, or were buried in situ by the tens of thousands.
No-one hesitated to photograph them, that I have ever heard of. I am sure there may have been manyatrocities that were never heard of, but there was nothing secreticve about our nation policy or why we were in a war.

A

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:28 AM

Strick said, "More than making politics out of the photos is my revulsion at trying to make political points out of someone else's misery. It's worse than rejoicing when unemployment numbers are higher or gloating when another soldier dies. You want pain to justify your political position. To hell with the pain of the people it affects, you just want to proof you were right. That's all there is to it. "

Those are completely offensive statements, and I believe Strick owes the people he intended them for a profound apology. Strick is putting an ugly political slant on a problem that affects all humans, regardless of their political bent. It was an ugly paragraph, Strick, and I believe you should be ashamed.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:01 AM

Janie - Thanks for the read.

You should start a new thread entitled Reconstruction in Iraq.

I'd like to discuss it but I don't think this is the appropriate thread.

I saw that photograph and it was artistry. It wasn't about propaganda from either side. It was just plain sad. Everyone should see it. Then the war wouldn't seem so remote to so many.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Strick
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:24 PM

"Let me try again: But their suppression as a political act of pro-war propaganda is just fine, right?"

If they were hiding the deaths or fudging the numbers I might accept it as propaganda. This is just drawing a line. Photos of the post-mortems of each of these soldiers also exist. I know no one here is asking they be published, but given what we're seeing all around us, someone will try. The National Military Family Association thinks not showing the photos is the better choice. Many families agree.

More than making politics out of the photos is my revulsion at trying to make political points out of someone else's misery. It's worse than rejoicing when unemployment numbers are higher or gloating when another soldier dies. You want pain to justify your political position. To hell with the pain of the people it affects, you just want to proof you were right. That's all there is to it.

Subject: RE: Hide The Dead Soldiers!
From: Janie
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:41 PM

Oops. Let's try that again. http://indyweek.com/durham/current/news.html