Faces

[shereads]

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

I don't know, Perdita. Americans have never been shy about honoring dead heros. We lost 400,000 people in WWII and nobody tried to hide their names and faces from the public. How could they, when there were so many? But people accepted the necessity of that war, once we were in it, and were able to handle the idea of sacrifice.

So many lies have been necessary to accomplish the invasion of Iraq. Clearly, the architects of this war believe that the reasons we're there are too weak and have been contradicted too often, to sustain public support once the magnitude of the sacrifice begins to sink in.

Out of sight, out of mind. It was working, too, wasn't it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

"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

Just wanted to add:

'casualty' means human beings are dying. 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.

-Sweet.

 

[shereads]

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.
]

"Listen, man. What part of 'Freedom Democracy Stay the Course Terror Terror' don't you understand?"

~ Get Your War On
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

 

[steve w]

Have to disagree wholeheartedly with amicus and his line of thought. It is a fact that people (on all sides and of various nations, religions, etc) have died in this conflict. To fail to report this fact would be to undermine the basic tenet of having a free press.

I am British and I was on vacation in California when the Iraq war was on. I was struck by the almost total lack of reference to any other nation than the USA. While I accept that Americans are always likely to be interested in Americans (just as we Brits are mainly interested in Brits), I was amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent Americans who didn't even know there were other troops fighting alongside them. I also recall hearing Rush Limbaud and the rest decrying ABC's coverage, because they felt it wasn't gung-ho enough. Er, excuse me. Politicians make policy, we vote them in or out, commentators give their views, reporters are just supposed to show us what's happening.

It is undoubtedly easier for people to turn away from things that distress them. Just as it's easier to ingore people dying of HIV in Africa, drowning in Bangladesh, or asking for change at a subway station. But that isn't the way to make a better world. To fail to acknowledge how many have died and suffered does not give us sufficient perspective to make reasoned judgements on the merits of the war or, just as important, how the aftermath of that war is being handled by all sides.

Incidentally, no TV or newspaper in the UK has provided a list of the British soldiers killed in Iraq. Perhaps Americans should consider themselves fortunate that at least one network has the guts to present another side for the debate. We don't get that luxury.

 

[Edward Teach]

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

Damn, ami, i think you've hit on something. It's those chicken shits causing all the problems, not the chicken hawks. More war is what we need. Let's just nuke all those motherfuckers and set 'em free. Preempt on their asses.


Boom, goes London
Boom, Pairee
More room for you
And more room for me

With apologies to Randy Newman,

Ed

 

[Pure]

A propos of this thread, and a note to sher,

Nightline, I believe, broadcast, nationally(night before last?), a reading of names and showing of faces (and bios?)of the almost 700 US soldiers.

Some stations in Ohio, Fla, etc. refused the telecast on ground that the show had a political agenda.

 

[shereads]

A propos of this thread, and a note to sher,

Nightline, I believe, broadcast, nationally(night before last?), a reading of names and showing of faces (and bios?)of the almost 700 US soldiers.

Some stations in Ohio, Fla, etc. refused the telecast on ground that the show had a political agenda.

Scroll back and you'll see Dr. Mabeuse's post of the CNN account of this story, J.
It wasn't the stations' decision. They were told not to run the program by the company that owns them, which also happens to be a contributor to the Bush campaign. John McCain has called their actions unpatriotic. Thank God there's at least one voice of reason on the pro-Iraq-war side of the fence.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I didn't watch it, but I was wondering if anyone else did?
~A~

 

[Guest]

I just couldn't stay up that late. Here's what Salon reported today. P.
---------

Names of Iraq War dead read on ABC show by Lynn Elber

May 1, 2004 | LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Ted Koppel solemnly read aloud the names of American soldiers killed in the Iraq war during an unusual edition of ABC's "Nightline" Friday night.

There was no music, no graphic flourishes. Name followed name, photo followed photo, with two Americans' pictures on the screen at any given moment. Some of the 721 faces looked determined. Others were smiling.

Koppel's recitation -- illustrated with corresponding photo, military branch, rank and age of each of the fallen since March 19, 2003 -- occupied the expanded 40-minute news show.

The presentation seemed to occupy the calm eye of a storm stirred up by soldiers' relatives, media watchdogs and Sen. John McCain after a TV station group announced its refusal to air the ABC News program, accusing it of having an anti-war slant.

Koppel, the program's anchor, addressed the uproar in his introduction.

"This was never intended to be about us," he said, "and for all the controversy swirling around the program, tonight is just going to be about the men and women who have died in the war in Iraq."

When the names had been read, Koppel closed by saying, "Our goal tonight was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism ...."

The reading of the names, he added, "was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war, nor was it meant as an endorsement."

The Fox affiliate in Greenville, S.C. -- one of the affected markets -- planned to air the program blacked out by the local ABC affiliate.

But earlier in the day, McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, sent a strongly worded letter to Sinclair Broadcast Group about its decision to pull "Nightline" from seven ABC stations throughout the country.

"There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq," the Arizona Republican said in the letter Friday.

Military Families Speak Out, whose anti-war members have relatives or loved ones in the military, condemned Sinclair's decision, saying it was "dishonoring our troops and their families."

The group's Web site posted one member's letter of opposition.

"The Sinclair Broadcast group is trying to undermine the lives of our soldiers killed in Iraq. By censoring `Nightline' they want to hide the toll the war on Iraq is having on thousands of soldiers and their families, like mine," wrote Jane Bright of West Hills, Calif. (Her son, Sgt. Evan Ashcraft, was killed in July near Mosul, Iraq.)

"We should be honoring all the men and women who have served," said Ivan Medina, 22, of Hinesville, Ga., who was with the Army in Iraq and whose twin brother, Irving, died there. "My hat goes off to `Nightline.'"

Free Press, which describes itself as a national media reform group, sent its own letter to Sinclair questioning whether the company's actions violated federal rules governing "stewardship of the public airwaves."

The letter, signed by Free Press managing director Josh Silver, said the group intended to encourage viewers served by Sinclair stations to weigh in when TV license renewal hearings are held.

Robert McChesney, the organization's president, called Sinclair's motives into question.

"No one thinks for a second this decision has anything to do with journalism," McChesney said. "It's a politics-slash-business decision that Sinclair made because they don't want to (anger) the White House."

Sinclair, a political supporter of the Bush administration, is trying to curry favor with the White House to bolster chances of gaining changes in station ownership rules, McChesney alleged.

"The stench of corruption here is extraordinary," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday: "I don't think we decide you all's coverage. I think we should always remember and honor all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our freedoms."

Maryland-based Sinclair, whose holdings include 62 TV stations, made $65,434 in 2004 political donations -- 98 percent of that to Republicans and 2 percent to Democrats -- according to the Web site opensecrets.org, which tracks contributions.

Sinclair announced Thursday it would pre-empt "Nightline" on its ABC affiliates, including stations in Columbus, Ohio, and St. Louis, Mo. It said the program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

Calling the broadcast a political statement "disguised as news content," Sinclair pointed to the producers' omission of "the names of thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks" since 9-11.

WTXL-TV, the Tallahassee, Fla., ABC affiliate that has an agreement to share resources with Sinclair but controls its own programming, planned to air Friday's "Nightline."

Early reports had wrongly included the Media Venture Management-owned station among those dropping the show. That prompted a flood of correspondence, said WTXL station manager Mike Plummer.

"The overwhelming response has been people want it," he said Friday.

ABC noted its news division had reported "hundreds of stories on 9-11" while adding that, on the first anniversary of that tragedy, it aired the victims' names.

Still, some observers questioned ABC's motives.

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, derided what he called the program's "partisan nature," saying its one goal was "to turn public opinion against the war."

 

[shereads]

I didn't watch it, but I was wondering if anyone else did?
~A~

I did, A.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I did, A.

and?

 

[shereads]

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, derided what he called the program's "partisan nature," saying its one goal was "to turn public opinion against the war."

This guy and Sinclair must have psychic powers, to have guessed the agenda behind the broadcast. Sinclair made their decision knowing only what ABC had said on record about the program: that the names of the dead would be read as their faces were shown, and that there would be no political commentary by Koppel or anyone else.

There was, actually. In the last few minutes of the show, Koppel said that he is not against the war. He is against the idea that Americans won't support a war we believe in, unless the casualties are hidden from us. He used the example of WWII when there were 400,000 killed, no attempt to hide their faces from the public, and no weakening of our will to continue the war.

We aren't that different a people than our parents and grandparents were. We didn't fail to support the Vietnam "police action" because we were born pacifists. We didn't support it because we saw our government fighting one flawed form of government to replace it with a phony democracy, headed by a corrupt president who would remain in our thrall. We learned that Nixon was illegally bombing Cambodia and lying to Congress about it.

We weren't against the war because we saw pictures of our war dead, or even because we saw horrific pictures of the carnage of war. We simply recognized that what was intended to be accomplished - the establishment of a U.S.-friendly government over people so unenthusiastic about the idea that they could hardly be induced to fight alongside our troops - was not worth the cost.

 

[shereads]

Btw - amicus maintains that the war in Vietnam brought down the Soviet Union. I thought their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was the long, expensive military effort that drained the Soviet economy; in fact, Afghanistan used to be referred to as "the Soviet Union's Vietnam."

edited: He didn't say that Vietnam "brought down" the Soviet Union. He did say that our intervention in Vietnam helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union.

It was Afghanistan, where they were about as popular as we are in Iraq. Unless I hallucinated those years.

 

[shereads]

If the president had been a student of recent history, he might have learned a lesson from the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan. One of which is that even total control of the media can't win a war that's being fought for dubious reasons.


http://www-cgsc.army.mil/csi/research/ComWar/comwarbaumann.asp

Compound Warfare: The Soviets in Afghanistan

When on 24-25 December 1979 Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan, they intended to conduct a neat, surgical intervention to stabilize a client regime on which they had lavished years of attention and aid. The immediate military objectives were to secure the capital, Kabul, and the main lines of communication, especially those leading back to the Soviet border. According to the plan, the small intervention force would complete its mission and assume a low profile, while the Soviet client army of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan restored government authority in the outlying provinces.

At the time, most Western political and military observers believed that, sooner or later, the mighty Soviet Army would subdue any and all resistance in Afghanistan. It would succeed, most calculated, because it would prosecute the war unconstrained by those factors that fatally crippled America’s efforts in Vietnam.

To begin with, domestic public support of the war in the USSR would never fade because the Soviet regime enjoyed comprehensive control of the press, would ruthlessly stifle any manifestations of dissent, and would never be compelled to negotiate with the resistance.1

Moreover, many observers maintained, the USSR, its political course governed by a clear and ruthless sense of purpose, would remain steadfastly indifferent to international opinion. Thus, the unleashed firepower of a technologically advanced military would make short work of poorly organized, undisciplined third world guerrillas.

What followed, of course, belied predictions. After nearly a decade of futility in Afghanistan, Soviet forces withdrew. Their losses transcended the subsequent loss of a client state and the resultant international embarrassment. The anguish of the war in Afghanistan deepened emerging fissures in Soviet society and contributed to its eventual disintegration.

 

[shereads]

Soviets in Afghanistan, continued...(See any parallels?)

...<snip>...the PDPA undertook an ambitious, Soviet-style modernization program that threatened the authority of the Islamic clergy, exhibited strong centralizing tendencies, and sought to reshape the educational system. Land reform proposals, redefinition of the societal role of women, and the conspicuous presence of foreign (Russian) experts and advisers particularly offended the clergy and other traditionalists.

Popular discontent erupted in March 1979 when angry Afghan mobs in Herat openly defied Kabul’s authority and murdered a group of Russian technicians. This event prompted the Kremlin to rush Mi-24 helicopters (which had proved effective against Eritrean rebels in Ethiopia) to the scene and to increase the contingent of military advisers to 3,000.3

At the same time, bitter political infighting between the Khalq and Parcham factions of the PDPA also troubled Soviet observers. In September 1979, a smoldering dispute at the top of the Afghan regime came to a head when Hafizullah Amin assumed the presidency following the assassination of his rival, Nur Mohammed Taraki. A peculiar political minuet followed in which Amin, on multiple occasions, apparently requested Soviet military assistance to quell domestic resistance, only to meet with polite but firm refusals.4 When Soviet troops finally did arrive on 24-25 December 1979, Amin, perceived in Moscow to be part of the problem, was targeted for removal and became one of the first casualties of the military intervention.

At first glance, the Soviets’ skillfully executed, surprise incursion seemed to achieve its objectives: a change of regime, capture of Kabul, and control of the principal lines of communication. Forces inserted by air paralyzed the capital, while a conventional column of about 15,000 men approached the country along the main road from the Soviet frontier. The strike was complete within hours.

In the view of the government of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev, this lightning success ought to have stabilized the situation in Afghanistan. However, it was only a matter of days before a hostile reaction began, both within and outside of Afghanistan. Though at first lacking any sort of cohesion, popular guerrilla resistance mounted across the country with the benefit of international support—initially moral and diplomatic but before long material as well. By February 1980, Soviet forces left their garrisons to confront mushrooming opposition. Soviet calculations, shaped by a preoccupation with conventional war, failed to account for the possibility that the resistance might resort to the tactics and strategy of unconventional war.5 This seemingly inexplicable neglect occurred in spite of the extensive historical experience of Russian and Soviet forces in waging unconventional wars in the Caucasus and Central Asia against tribes similar to those in Afghanistan.

Later, in the aftermath of Soviet failure in Afghanistan, none of those still alive who played a prominent part in the war claimed responsibility for the decision to invade or the strategy that followed.

 

[shereads]

<bump>

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...I thought Edward Teach was an Irate Pirate, not?

An interesting array of thoughts cascading down the pages of this thread...I just went back and browsed pages two and three, ain't the internet great and are we havin' fun yet?

By the way...for the Brit's contributing...I just posted a story, in the Romance category that features a 'toff' as a character, I suppose I got that all wrong also, woe is me.

Not that it matters...said the turtle in Neverending Story...but I rather do not like this current war in Iraq, nor did I like the limited response in Korea or Vietnam.

I also rather think the United States did not jump at the chance to become involved in Korea, way back then but...the emergence of the Soviet Union after WW2, as a super power, with Nuclear Weapons, the military pressure on a still recovering Europe and the Chinese Communists, not to speak of the 1930's occupation of most of Asia by the Japanese...history is a sticky wicket sometimes.

Strange to consider the current socialist government in France, considering their colonization of Vietnam and the debacle at Dien Bien Phu...

It is not the issues of political warfare that I address, rather the longterm endeavor of man to rid himself of oppressive government.

The middle east situation, an ongoing threat since the Balfour Declaration just as the 20th century was getting underway, will likely not be resolved in this century either.

It might be well to remind oneself that the current Iraq situation would not have come about had there been no terrorist attack on United States in September of 2001.

A history of oil exploration by the Brits and the Dutch and the Americans in the 20's and 30's is also an interesting read. It was the wealth created by oil revenue,(not dates and figs and camel hair) that fueled the rise in importance of middle eastern nations. Both the Russians and the Germans wanted and needed the petroleum of that area.

Ah, but I digress...the war in Iraq, the conflict in the middle east, will not be resolved until Islamic theology is eradicated from influence in the political structure all all middle eastern countries and I do not see that happening without a 3rd World War and a total occupation of the middle east.

Perhaps a Nato coalition force based in Iraq will hinder, delay and maybe even stop development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that can be used by Islamic terrorists world wide. But I would not wager heavily upon that.

Recent political events in this country have caused me to re evaluate a prediction I made recently concerning the up coming Presidential election....I thought a Bush victory on the order of 54 to 56% was to be expected. However, as the 'presumed' Democrat candidate, Kerry, exposes his viewpoints more and more, I now think the Democrat Party will take only Massachusetts come November...and the candidate may not be Kerry after all...like Dean, he has exposed his utter lack of ability to be 'Presidential', and I think even card carrying liberals can see that ...you may find Hilary by acclamation at the Dems Convention this summer...

Analyze that....

regards, amicus...

 

[shereads]

Wow. I wish I could live in denial, too.

It has to suck knowing your preferred leader has taken the world to the edge of the abyss, while you igored the evidence that the man was just bright enough to be duped by the likes of Ahmad Chalabi and Dick Cheney.

I know it's a wasted effort to suggest that anyone this far off the charts ideologically might investigate the truth about his own party, but there's an article in Vanity Fair this month that has even those of us who disavow conspiracy theories believing that maybe, just maybe, 9/ll was less of a surprise than it should have been to Cheney & Co.

 

[steve w]

amicus,

I hope you use public transport, as it must be very difficult to drive without dislodging one of the many chips on your shoulder. I don't recall making any comment about class, accents, or anything else you might wish to link to being British. I merely observed that British (not to mention Iraqi, and other nations) have died in the conflict, and that when I was in the USA I don't recall anyone, on TV or otherwise, mentioning their presence.

Perhaps your President, who I assume now knows the name of the Pakistani leader (i.e. that it isn't "General General") would do better to realise that he lives in the world, not in a bubble that ends in Maine. I'm sure there are Aussies out there who recall a similar approach being taken to the victims of the Vietnam war who weren't American.

It does little service to the causes espoused by the United States government, which I assume you support, to blatantly ignore the suffering and sacrifice endured by other nations. Perhaps that attitude, as expressed in the past, has contributed to the situation the world now finds itself in. Ask the people of Madrid.

 

[SummerMorning]

I believe it was Theodore W. Adorno who wrote of the circumstances that allow the development of totalitarian regimes and that he mentioned something regarding "authoritarian personalities."

 

[amicus]

Iwas puzzled at what I may have said that raised the ire of the English commentor...I reread my post and still remain puzzled. Other than the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, I have no antagonism whatsoever towards the English. In fact I had the pleasure of visiting that grand island nation and came away with fond memories.

Insofar as ignoring that other nations have also suffered, I do not see that as a valid criticism. I am an American, I was born here and had I not been, I would have found my way here, one way or another, as so many have.

It is good to have passion in a debate or discussion, however, in none of my posts will you find any individual, pejorative name calling.

There seems to be an abundance of those willing to criticize America and very few, at least in the 'hangout' who would defend.

I have yet to read of one defense for a command economy, or of one defense of a socialist nation. I guess since you cannot defend your political and economic viewpoints, the only thing left for you is to criticize.

Bring it on.

regards...amicus

 

[SummerMorning]

Ami... combat is soooo passe'...

 

[amicus]

Amicus slaps self on forehead, "I knew that!"

 

[shereads]

Eleven more dead Americans in Iraq this weekend.

Steve, if you can find a website like Faces of the Fallen dedicated to British casualties in Iraq, post it here. There ought to be some comprehensive listing of Bush's coalition of the willing and/or blackmailed, but that's not likely without cooperation among some major news sources in all of the participating countries.

Even less likely is an accurate count of the dead in Iraq.

I almost hate to ask, Amicus, but what did you feel when you saw the photographs of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and stripped naked? And when, having killed a few hundred people in Fallujah, we turned the city over to the Iraqi army we were sent to defeat? Is our Leader doing a bang-up job in the quest to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq?

What is it that we're accomplishing? Specifics, please. I'm sick to death of hearing the president and his supporters spouting sound bites: freedom democracy stay the course, it's all a blur. And no, "fighting terrorism" is no longer a credible answer. Your boy has all but admitted that there was no link with 9/ll; what's more, we've opened the borders of Iraq to terrorists by leaving the country with no civil structure.

At least when Saddam Hussein was in power, he was the one torturing his people. Now it's us.

When and how did we turn into this? God, how I long for the carefree days when the worst thing in the news each night was sex in the oval office.

The good news, for Republicans and assorted Clinton-haters, is that your president still hasn't lied under oath. Any idea why he and Cheney refused to be under oath when they were questioned by the 9/11 panel? And why the White House insisted that there be no transcripts of the interview? And why the president couldn't testify on his own, but could appear only with Cheney - and had to rehearse for three days in advance?

WTF?

 

[sweetnpetite]

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...

Ah, but I digress...the war in Iraq, the conflict in the middle east, will not be resolved until Islamic theology is eradicated from influence in the political structure all all middle eastern countries and I do not see that happening without a 3rd World War and a total occupation of the middle east.


regards, amicus...

How and on what planet are these two thoughts compatible?

Perhaps you have a different definition of 'freedom' (occupation?) and individual rights (religion, theology, political belief and thought) than the rest of us?

To me this reads like this: We cannot be free to live and believe what we want until we have obliterated those with different or opposing beliefs. Then we will all be free to believe anything we want (as long as it is the official approved belief system of the conqouring heroes.) So tell me, what exactly is it that you are fighting for again?