Faces

[Couture]

Colly,

You make some intelligent and very valid points.

But what are we to do then, just pull out and let them fight amongst themselves, probably ending up a country in a worse state than before the conflict started. What would be said about our governments then.

The problem I believe isn't only with the Iraqi's.

Anyone from anywhere with a grudge against America, and a gun, or just people from anywhere who want to kill for free, are flocking to the region to have a go at just that!

It's almost impossible to guard against.

And as you say, they have no experience in it.

"To occupy Iraq would instantly . . . turn[] the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
-George Bush I

 

[shereads]

"To occupy Iraq would instantly . . . turn[] the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
-George Bush I

I've looked everywhere for that quote from Bush Senior, Couture. It's from his autobiography, right? Where did you find it?

It's priceless.

 

[oggbashan]

Historical Perspective

During the First World War, local papers in the United Kingdom used to print casualty lists every week. By 1917 most had stopped printing them, not because of an edict from Government, but because they couldn’t get enough paper to print the lists. The lists of this week’s dead were longer than the rest of the paper.

Almost every community has a war memorial to those who died in the First World War, with additions for those who died in the Second World War, Korea and other wars. Usually they are visited on Armistice Day, 11 November and on other significant days during the year. Our children grow up with these memorials as part of their heritage. In our town the names on the memorials are familiar. The surnames survive as pupils in the local schools, as names on shop fronts, as people mentioned in the local news.

If a relative dies, when we go to the cemetery we pass the markers of those who died locally. If we visit Belgium and France we see vast areas covered by war graves.

All this reminds us that war has a price in lives lost or damaged. Every year since 1945, except one, British servicemen and women have died in combat in wars formally declared or not. We do not forget them.

We know that if this country goes to war some of our forces will die, some will be terribly injured and most will be affected by combat. The numbers and proportion of the population will not be as great as the losses we and other countries suffered during the First World War but there will be casualties.

Whatever the reasons for the war in Iraq, the impact on our forces is unchanged. They have been given a difficult task which could cost their lives. As professionals they will do their best to fulfil their objective of creating a free Iraq governed fairly by its own people. They deserve our support for their task. Their families need our support. Those who die need to be appreciated and remembered. Those who are injured or otherwise damaged need our support. All of them deserve our thanks.

I have written this about the United Kingdom’s forces. It is equally valid for US forces, for the forces of the other nations standing side by side with the US, and for those civilians, Iraqi and many others, who are working with the troops to rebuild Iraq. They share the risks. They share the task. They share the objective to create a country in which Iraqis will be free to choose their own leaders.

That objective is worthwhile. Argument about why the war started is not relevant to the current objective to give freedom to the Iraqi people. The reasons for declaring war and the consequences of that decision to go to war are for all of us to consider in our own way when deciding who should lead our countries in the future. Our votes have the power to change our governments. That power was protected for us by those who fought and died in the past. The troops and civilians in Iraq are trying to give the Iraqis the power we now have. Some of them have paid the ultimate price for the freedoms we tend to take for granted. We must remember them.

Og

 

[shereads]

Re: Historical Perspective

The troops and civilians in Iraq are trying to give the Iraqis the power we now have. Some of them have paid the ultimate price for the freedoms we tend to take for granted. We must remember them.

Og [/B]

Yes, Og. Some people will remember them silently. I'll remember them while doing what little I can to prevent more waste. Those of us who believe that what's happening in Iraq right now is a preventable tragedy can do no less than ask others to hold our leaders accountable so that in the future, we might be more careful with the young lives we risk.

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,

It's late, and your speech has been replied to a lot, but...

There is an honor involved when a family sends a young man or woman to a perimeter of defense for those who remain safe at home.

Yeah, Vietnam was on that perimeter. Now it's Iraq. And Elvis lives. Dolce et decorum est pro patria mori. (Owen).

I do not challenge your right to be a pacifist,

Cite your evidence sher is a pacifist, or retract and admit to (what is in your friends' eyes) 'mudslinging'.

There's of course nothing wrong with principled pacifism, a la Gandhi, but there no evidence it's involved here.

It's a crude 'red herring', and beneath you Amicus, though if you've really had a radio talk show in evangelical country, I can see why you'd pander like that.

or your own ideological foundation, but for those who appreciate the necessity of defending the values they live by, I offer my words of encouragement.

There's no evidence American values are being defended by, for instance, killing a enough to fill a large stadium/graveyard in Fallujah.

We will protect the freedoms gained by previous defense, not for your sake, but for ours and our childrens.

That's pretty crass. It began to ring hollow in Vietnam after a couple years, even to the brave soldiers-- who often realized they were dying pointlessly.

Out of curiosity, where exactly is this 'perimeter' these days, and which side of it is Saudi Arabia on?

J.

 

[sweetnpetite]

butting right in but-

weren't the suicide bombers 'defending their way of life'?

Not every 'way of life' is worth defending, but then again it seems that way to those who live it.

Blind obediance to 'way of life' and 'country, leaders, g/God/s will ensure war for time eternal. What a lovely way of life...

Sadly,

Sweet.

Thanks, Dr. M.

If there had been a smallpox lab and a couple of those long-range missiles that we were told could be deployed in less than 45 minutes, these deaths would still be an immeasurable loss - but there would have been a reason, at least.

There will always be people who march in lockstep, and there will be people for whom any war fought under our flag is somehow "in defense of our way of life." For them, the only way to honor the fallen is to send more 18-year-olds to fight in their place, and to keep doing so until we win. Unfortunately, there's no clear goal in Iraq to tell us that we've won.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I just wish you could search by state or age. (Yes, it would be something to see the faces of just the people who were the same age as you, who are dead today)

I remember in the 80's, when there was a huge outcry against 'Babies having Babies" Noone seemed to object to the clasification of teenage girls as 'babies' Yet I wonder what the outcry of the opostion would be to the term, "Babies killing babies"

I forgot, it's a necessary evil to have our young kill each other.

 

[shereads]

I just wish you could search by state or age. (Yes, it would be something to see the faces of just the people who were the same age as you, who are dead today)

I remember in the 80's, when there was a huge outcry against 'Babies having Babies" Noone seemed to object to the clasification of teenage girls as 'babies' Yet I wonder what the outcry of the opostion would be to the term, "Babies killing babies"

I forgot, it's a necessary evil to have our young kill each other.

There is a search feature, but it's by name.

 

[sweetnpetite]

There is a search feature, but it's by name.

I saw that. I'd rather have it be by state. I used to work in a convienience store and many of my costomers were in the millitary, I know that at least some of them were deployed, but I don't know them all by name.

 

[steve w]

Perhaps another British view might add to the debate.

We live in an age of technology, but what would be the difference between the website mentioned, and the wall at Arlington? Both name those who have died fighting for their country overseas. I don't recall Arlington saying anything about the causes, justness, or otherwise of the war, merely that these young people gave their lives. Having visited Arlington, I consider it a place of great emotional strength. I can only imagine the impact it would have on those who have lost loved ones.

British soldiers have also died in Iraq, as they died in Kosovo, Bosnia, and elsewhere. If we don't like it, we have the power to change it. No leader in a Western democracy can survive a truly hostile public reaction. I sense, therefore, that while many of us might consider it a tragic waste of young life on all sides, we ultimately lack the will to effect change. If that's the case, the least we can do is to ensure that these soldiers are remembered, and respected for laying down their lives.

As a final (and possibly more controversial) point, I personally would be less concerned about such a website had I seen Pres Bush attending the funerals of each and every one of them, and seeking to offer some solace to the bereaved family and friends.

 

[shereads]

Perhaps another British view might add to the debate.

We live in an age of technology, but what would be the difference between the website mentioned, and the wall at Arlington? Both name those who have died fighting for their country overseas. I don't recall Arlington saying anything about the causes, justness, or otherwise of the war, merely that these young people gave their lives. Having visited Arlington, I consider it a place of great emotional strength. I can only imagine the impact it would have on those who have lost loved ones.

British soldiers have also died in Iraq, as they died in Kosovo, Bosnia, and elsewhere. If we don't like it, we have the power to change it. No leader in a Western democracy can survive a truly hostile public reaction. I sense, therefore, that while many of us might consider it a tragic waste of young life on all sides, we ultimately lack the will to effect change. If that's the case, the least we can do is to ensure that these soldiers are remembered, and respected for laying down their lives.

As a final (and possibly more controversial) point, I personally would be less concerned about such a website had I seen Pres Bush attending the funerals of each and every one of them, and seeking to offer some solace to the bereaved family and friends.

He visited a veteran's hospital when he was on vacation in Texas, after someone on Meet the Press accused the president of "disappearing at an inexcusable time."

The veterans hospitals are filling up fast, and from what my friends with military connections tell me, the injuries that people are surviving these days - thanks to the availability of high-quality medical care near the front - would typically not have been survivable in Vietnam or Korea. Nobody is giving much attention to the issue of how many will face futures without limbs, without their sight, with head injuries that limit their ability to function. Benefits are being cut for veterans and military families by the people who preach about supporting our troops.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Benefits are being cut for veterans and military families by the people who preach about supporting our troops.

This is the part that irks me, but can you provide any links or support of this, were I could find out more of the specifics? Thanks.

 

[shereads]

This is the part that irks me, but can you provide any links or support of this, were I could find out more of the specifics? Thanks.

I'll try to remember to check for documentation of this tonight, snp. It's something I remember hearing discussed on NPR, in response to the focus on Kerry's having voted against the rebuilding budget, and how that proves he doesn't support the troops. I think there's also a chapter about officers' salaries and Pentagon salaries versus what low-ranking soldiers are paid, in Molly Ivans' "Bushwhacked." I'll look.

STEVE - I just realized I Americanized my response to your post. We tend to forget that the same sacrifice is being made by other countries.

I'd like to talk about veterans' benefits in the UK and elsewhere and how it compares to here. But way late for my afternoon at the office.

 

[Guest]

Sher, who'd a thought - you and Ted Koppel. I like what he says about showing 'the fallen' on "Nightline":

"Just look at these people. Look at their names. And look at their ages. Consider what they've done for you. Honor them,'' Koppel said. "I truly believe that people will take away from this program the reflection of what they bring to it.''

Perdita

Nightline tribute

 

[amicus]

To the Kiwi fellow down under, whose America's Cup entry got beaten by the Suisse...who don't even have a lake big enough to sail on...Social Democrats all..the former Queen's Colonies should at least have the courage to call themselves Socialists...which indeed they are...

It seems that 'name calling' rather than presenting issues is the name of the game on the left...I don't mind, been called worse by better qualified...

Those who advocate freedom have always been a minority, most seem to want and need a, 'father' figure, in the form of a King, a God or a dictator to tell them how to live and provide for them as they seem incapable of relying upon individual initiative and mutual cooperation.

Less than one in four colonists supported the Revolutionary War in early America...and pacifists have dogged the cause of freedom from the time of the Civil War...through the !st World War, kept us out of WW2 until it was almost too late...acted and spoke against the Korean conflict and the Vietnamese United Nations Police Action...those last two, finally drained and exhausted the Soviet Union and did in fact contain world Communism until it collapsed from internal rot and the obvious fact that the system simply does not and has never worked.

Human freedom, individual rights..as codified in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution...is a new thing in the history of man...it may not survive, but I will be damned if I let it die by default simply because the hand holding left coalitions keep yapping away...


regards...amicus

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[lucky-E-leven]

deleted

Damn, that was fast.

~lucky (always chasing Sher)

p.s. Sounds like a movie title to me...

 

[shereads]

Damn, that was fast.

Not as fast as a Saute of Prawns in Lemon-Butter Sauce

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Not as fast as a Saute of Prawns in Lemon-Butter Sauce

don't forget:

Butterfly Prawns with Chili and Rocket Salad

~lucky (zoom!)

 

[shereads]

Dr. Mabeuse posted this at another thread, and I'm adding it here. I'm astonished that we've reached a point where simply acknowledging our war dead - without commentary, by showing their faces and reading their names - is somehow thought to be immoral, unpatriotic, an attempt to pursue "an agenda."

Is the patriotic thing to ignore these deaths? At what other time in history, with the exception of the first Gulf War, has a country at war tried so hard to ignore the fact that lives are being lost?

How would any of these people feel if they knew that the people who sent them to war are ashamed to acknowledge their loss?

We're not the only ones with divided opinionds. From Yahoo News:


CNN) -- The decision of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline," has received criticism from U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona).

Friday's show will air the names and photographs of the more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war.

"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces," McCain, a Vietnam veteran, wrote in a letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group. "It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."

In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

Sinclair's decision, announced Thursday, drew angry calls from the public and a sharp response from ABC News.

"We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt 'Nightline's' tribute to America's fallen soldiers," ABC News said in a statement. "The 'Nightline' broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

Some of the stations have received many calls and e-mails in response to Sinclair's decision.

"I have not gotten one positive response," said an assignment desk editor at WSYX, the ABC station in Columbus, Ohio.

WEAR in Pensacola, Florida, has been inundated with phone calls and e-mails. A man who answered the phone in the station's newsroom said people mostly wanted to know why the decision was made.

On the Web site for WLOS in Asheville, North Carolina, the station invited viewers to e-mail the station and said it would forward the messages to Sinclair.

The company's other ABC stations are in St. Louis, Missouri; Charleston, West Virginia; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and Springfield, Massachusetts.

The show, titled "The Fallen," will air at 11:35 p.m. Friday. In it, newsman Ted Koppel will read the names of the U.S. troops killed in action while their pictures are shown to viewers.

As of Thursday, 533 U.S. troops have been killed in action in the Iraq war; another 204 troops have died from nonhostile incidents.

Sinclair general counsel Barry Faber confirmed the company told its ABC affiliates not to air Friday's "Nightline."

"We find it to be contrary to public interest," he said.

ABC said that on the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it aired the names and pictures of all those who died on that day.

"ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades," it said.

Sinclair's statement said ABC is politicizing the war.

"Mr. Koppel and 'Nightline' are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq," the statement said.

According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

The executives have not given any donations to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, the records showed.

Sinclair owns and operates, programs, or provides sales services to 62 stations in 39 markets, according to its Web site.

In addition its ABC outlets, Sinclair's television group includes 20 Fox, 19 WB, six UPN, three CBS and four NBC affiliates, and two independent stations.

It reaches approximately 24 percent of all U.S. television households, according to the Web site.

ABC News will show the tribute live on its large television screen in New York's Times Square.

 

[shereads]

I posted this link two days ago. There are more names now. No photos yet for the most recent.

I'm really blown away by the article Dr. M posted. I hadn't heard that, and it just won't sink in. How could keeping these men and women from being known to their countrymen possibly be called an act of respect?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

 

[Guest]

Sher, you've got to fully read your own thread, I posted this news above.

Yeah, I was astonished too. Being Mexican, it seems so unnatural to me. Aside from the administration's aberrant behavior, denying death seems such an 'american' perversion.

Perdita

 

[amicus]

ABC news, in general and 'Nightline' in particular has been blatantly 'anti-war' for the past year...and more...

The pathetic attempt by ABC and Ted Koppel, to try to turn viewers against the war by listing the names of those lost in battle has been pointed out to be exactly that; A political agenda by a commercial television network to go against the current administration.

Which they have a right to do and be...the only controversy here, is that ABC and Ted Koppel have been, 'called out'. Now let us see if they have the courage of their convictions and admit that their motive was purely political.

regards, amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

wow.

showing the effects of war and other government/societal actions are what journalism is all about. A simple tribute with absolutely no comentary is what I would call showing remarkable restraint, not to mention respectful and patriotic(in a citizenship way, not in a blind faith way).

If it's an agenda to honor the fallen, or to show and tell the truth- it's equally (actually moreso) an agenda to try to sweep the truth under the rug by not showing, not humanizing, and euphamising the cost of war in human lives.

What are phrases like 'casualties, friendly fire, ect. ect.' other than an attempt to 'soften' the truth in order to increase and maintain support for war. It's been going on since wars began. The only controversy here is that it's being 'called out' as you say.

There will *always* be someone to remind the world that 'casualty' means human beings are being killed. Since we live in a 'free country' and a 'democracy' -ie, *we* are our government- it is our *duty* to remember that, and to weigh the costs accordingly. That is not agenda, that is responsible self-government/citizenship.

We don't just have a right to know- we have a duty to remember, to honor and to weigh the cost.

OUr government does not act on it's own authority, you might remember, but derives its "*just* powers from the consent of the governed.' Consent begins with being informed and facing the truth, not some sugar coated version of it.

ABC news, in general and 'Nightline' in particular has been blatantly 'anti-war' for the past year...and more...

The pathetic attempt by ABC and Ted Koppel, to try to turn viewers against the war by listing the names of those lost in battle has been pointed out to be exactly that; A political agenda by a commercial television network to go against the current administration.

Which they have a right to do and be...the only controversy here, is that ABC and Ted Koppel have been, 'called out'. Now let us see if they have the courage of their convictions and admit that their motive was purely political.

regards, amicus...

 

[shereads]

ABC news, in general and 'Nightline' in particular has been blatantly 'anti-war' for the past year...and more...

The pathetic attempt by ABC and Ted Koppel, to try to turn viewers against the war by listing the names of those lost in battle has been pointed out to be exactly that; A political agenda by a commercial television network to go against the current administration.

Which they have a right to do and be...the only controversy here, is that ABC and Ted Koppel have been, 'called out'. Now let us see if they have the courage of their convictions and admit that their motive was purely political.

regards, amicus...

"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."

regards, Senator John McCain