This is so wrong!

[cloudy]

I've been reading all the political threads, and I don't agree with everyone, but feel that politics is very close to religion, in that it's a very personal thing.

I've bitten my tongue until it bleeds, but I've finally had enough. I don't really care what your politics are, it doesn't concern me. You have your opinion just like I have mine. Neither one is better or more valid.....it just "is."

But this rubs me the wrong way just a little too hard.

I'm sorry, folks, but it is just so wrong to post on here about "looking at all the faces" of the people that have been killed in Iraq. Yes, it's heartwrenching, but don't try to convince me you're not using that in the agenda against Bush. I don't care what you think of him as a president or otherwise, and that's not what this is about.

Do you honestly think that those people, or their families for that matter, would like to see them used like that? If it was one of my family members, I would be horrified, just like I am when people use my brother-in-law's death in the World Trade Center for their own agendas.

Right or wrong, we are in Iraq, people, get over it. Those are our fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc. over there, and I guarantee you that those that are there are proud to serve the country, whether they personally feel the whole damn thing is right or wrong.

They may have joined the military for a chance at an education, or a decent career, but they joined. The draft hasn't been reinstated, and personally, I hope it doesn't have to be, but it was a choice they made.

How many of you have brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, etc. over there right now?

Using the dead is a new all-time low.

I'll probably get tons and tons of replies on here bashing me for this, but hey, bash away. It's wrong! End of story.

We may not agree on politics but this is just so sad.

 

[storytyme]

I have to agree. We should stand behind those that are in Iraq and Afghanastan (sp?). They didn't choose to go overseas, but they did choose to join the military and many of them are giving their lives for the freedoms that we have. Whether you or I agree as to whether they should be there isn't the issue. They are there and that is how it is.

 

[Guest]

Cloudy, I really do appreciate what you've said, but I can't think the people here are exploiting the dead. Perhaps politicians do, and the media, but give us a little more credit. There's no hidden agenda with anyone here, that I can see. Many people are anti-Bush and against the war in Iraq, but there's no subterfuge involved.

However, I respect your opinions and thoughts, and hope you believe that. I will keep them in mind from now on.

best to you always, Perdita

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, I really do appreciate what you've said, but I can't think the people here are exploiting the dead. Perhaps politicians do, and the media, but give us a little more credit. There's no hidden agenda with anyone here, that I can see. Many people are anti-Bush and against the war in Iraq, but there's no subterfuge involved.

However, I respect your opinions and thoughts, and hope you believe that. I will keep them in mind from now on.

best to you always, Perdita

I do believe that, Perdita, thank you.

Maybe the agenda thing was something I felt rather than anything else, because so many people here are against the whole Iraq thing, and that's fine - it's their opinion, and I respect that. But the same people I read over and over again coming down so hard on Bush, are the ones that are posting in the "faces" thread, and it really got to me, that's all.

 

[neonlyte]

Cloudy
Thank you showing the courage to post your feelings, it is an emotive issue and, regretably, is capable of exploitation.

I dont know the agenda of the people who operate the site, I do know that posting the pictures will incite opinion, we may draw our own conclusions as their ultimate intention.

You have my deepest sympathy for the stress this is causing you, the loss of any life, no matter the validity or otherwise of the cause, is to be regretted.

NL

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Posting the faces of those killed in combat is a political tool. It is a tool of protest in exactly the same way as sites like Iraq body count, daily updating the number of people killed is.

Cloudy's point is very well made, in that such sites are forms of protest. Even more, they are not so much protests against the war as they are protests against the administration that decided this war was neccessary. In that she is absolutely correct.

The problem here is that to people who are passinately anti-bush or anti-war, there is such immediacy to this form of propaganda that they do not see the manipulative nature of the people who make such stites. To those here at the Ah this form of propaganda works extremely well, apealing not only to the heart strings, but coinciding with their own political feelings.

For all of us, you must step back and view it for what it is, a political statement, just as much as the Bush Aircraft carrier photo op. A memorial to the fallen is a solemn thing, using their images to reach people on an emotional level, by passing reason is a sacrilidge to the very beliefs that sent them to the military in the first place.

In all honesty, ask yourself. If someone dear to you were killed in action, doing what they considered their duty to their country, would you want their face displayed in such a way? I wouldn't. I would prefer to see them honored for what they gave, rather than used to move a protest against what they stood for.

-Colly

 

[Couture]

Cloudy, I haven't posted on the faces thread, but I can understand where you are coming from, and I respect that.

However, as someone who opposed the Iraq war, I can also understand the other side of the coin as well. First, I disagree with the whole premise of 'those of you who use it against Bush.'

Before the war, I called my congressman and senators. I wrote letters...emails... I put candles in the window...wrote to the newspaper.

All the while people told me to shut up. They know more than they are letting on. That I was weakening Bush's ability to negotiate with Saddam.

Then I was told to shut up because we were at war. I was told that you either support the war or you support terrorism. That I was either for the troops or against them. That my protest could effect their morale.

Well, what the hell good does morale do someone who's dead? This is a bad war, and I will continue to say so. You will not make me ashamed to fight for what is right. The same tactics were used against those who opposed the Vietnam war. Yes, it worked for awhile, but eventually, the truth - the truth becomes so pervasive and persuasive, that it cannot be denied.

I am against this war. This war was started for the wrong reasons. The administration's story has changed so many times, I've lost track. Those who didn't tow the party line have had their jobs or reputations ruined. And they try to shame the rest of us into not speaking out.

I continue to speak the truth. This war is wrong. There were no WMD's. There was no threat. There was no terrorist link. This war has not made us safer, but provided new recruits to the terrorists. This war has killed so many young Americans for no good reason and the very thoughts of it saddens my heart to no end. I want them home and I'm not ashamed to say so.

If that's low, then I'm the lowest of the low.

 

[cloudy]

for neonlyte

And thanks to you for a thoughtful reply.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, I haven't posted on the faces thread, but I can understand where you are coming from, and I respect that.

However, as someone who opposed the Iraq war, I can also understand the other side of the coin as well. First, I disagree with the whole premise of 'those of you who use it against Bush.'

Before the war, I called my congressman and senators. I wrote letters...emails... I put candles in the window...wrote to the newspaper.

All the while people told me to shut up. They know more than they are letting on. That I was weakening Bush's ability to negotiate with Saddam.

Then I was told to shut up because we were at war. I was told that you either support the war or you support terrorism. That I was either for the troops or against them. That my protest could effect their morale.

Well, what the hell good does morale do someone who's dead? This is a bad war, and I will continue to say so. You will not make me ashamed to fight for what is right. The same tactics were used against those who opposed the Vietnam war. Yes, it worked for awhile, but eventually, the truth - the truth becomes so pervasive and persuasive, that it cannot be denied.

I am against this war. This war was started for the wrong reasons. The administration's story has changed so many times, I've lost track. Those who didn't tow the party line have had their jobs or reputations ruined. And they try to shame the rest of us into not speaking out.

I continue to speak the truth. This war is wrong. There were no WMD's. There was no threat. There was no terrorist link. This war has not made us safer, but provided new recruits to the terrorists. This war has killed so many young Americans for no good reason and the very thoughts of it saddens my heart to no end. I want them home and I'm not ashamed to say so.

If that's low, then I'm the lowest of the low.

Notice I never said whether the war was right or wrong, did I? What I said was you believe what you want about the war, it's all good.

That said, it's absolutely wrong, no matter what side you're on, to use the dead as a political tool. It's manipulative at the very least, and absolutely gutwrenching to those families left behind. That's okay with you?

 

[oggbashan]

One of our political parties has made their position crystal clear.

They opposed the war but they support the troops.

Once the war had started despite their opposition and doubts they take the stance that almost all UK politicians take - Whatever the cause, once our forces are in place, it is dishonourable NOT to support them.




We can argue about why they are there; what they are being asked to achieve; what their rules of engagement are... but we don't argue about the troops. They are doing a task they have been asked to do after the democratic procedures have decided that it is to be done. They are fighting, dying, and being wounded in our name.

Whether the war was justified or not is irrelevant except in domestic politics. Our people ARE there and will stay there until their task is complete.

Og

 

[Guest]

Thank you, Og, for saying the words I've been struggling to find for the last hour.

Cloudy, thank you, for having the courage to say what you did.

Lou

 

[cloudy]

Thanks, Og, for saying things the way you do. You always, always make sense.

Thanks to you, Miss Lou, for giving me the support to be able to say what I think.

 

[Couture]

Whether the war was justified or not is irrelevant except in domestic politics. Our people ARE there and will stay there until their task is complete.

Og

Whether the war is justified or not is not irrelevant. It is the root of the matter. If a war is justified, then it is worth most any sacrifice. However, if it's not, then it isn't sacrifice...it's waste.

Here in our country, there is a covenant with our soldiers. That will will not spend their lives in vain.

What is their task and when will it be over?

 

[cloudy]

Whether the war is justified or not is not irrelevant. It is the root of the matter. If a war is justified, then it is worth most any sacrifice. However, if it's not, then it isn't sacrifice...it's waste.

Here in our country, there is a covenant with our soldiers. That will will not spend their lives in vain.

What is their task and when will it be over?

You are missing the whole point!

Just for one second, get off the soapbox about the damn war and look at what some people are doing to sway people!

 

[Couture]

That said, it's absolutely wrong, no matter what side you're on, to use the dead as a political tool. It's manipulative at the very least, and absolutely gutwrenching to those families left behind. That's okay with you?

Like I said, I haven't even posted to the other thread or visited the site in question. I really don't think I could take it at the moment. This whole thing stays on my mind enough right now, and I don't need to add to it. And I do empathize and sympathize with you totally.

But you do have to admit that the soldiers have been used as a political tool well before now. Jessica Lynch? How about Bush or Cheney not attending any funerals or allowing pictures of caskets to be published. The don't want anyone to know about the dead or dying. They want them to be an abstraction. They don't even call them people ... or soldiers ... they are troops. And they are so quick to point a finger and say, so and so isn't supporting the troops.

So I'm off the soapbox, and I agree with you one hundred percent. I feel that posting the faces is wrong. And especially wrong to the families left behind. And yet, I feel that what the administration is doing is just as wrong. Somewhere in the middle, somewhere between knowing that there are living breathing human beings over there dying ... but not causing grieving families additional harm would be where we need to be.

Unfortunately, the world is being run by extremists right now. That's why I rarely turn on the TV.

 

[shereads]

deleted double post

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Aren't the armed forces a political tool? Isn't that what they were always meant to be, the reason why every man and woman in the military have volunteered, the reason why they have given up their rights as individuals and became part of something greater?

Personally, I think it's a great cowardice not to want to even see the faces of those who died for your flag.

By the way, what does 'oppose the war but support the troops' mean? Does anyone ever 'oppose' their own troops? Spain has just called their troops in Iraq back home. Is the new government against the troops? Genuinely confused, here...

 

[shereads]

Last night I was sitting alone at the computer and opened a link called "Faces Of The Fallen," which has been up for a while at The Washington Post site. I'd seen it a few times, but I didn't look until last night.

I didn't want to look, for the same reason I didn't want to see Schlinder's List or Saving Private Ryan a few years ago. It's difficult enough to contemplate that kind of carnage from a distance, as a stranger.

I didn't want to, but last night I looked anyway, for the same reason I eventually made myself see those movies: if I had died far from home, at an age when most people are beginning to plan their lives, I think I'd have liked knowing that strangers might wonder who I was and what I was like and what the world lost when it let me go.

I opened the link and looked at the faces because I felt bad for having turned away the other times I saw it. I did it because ignoring the dead felt like dishonoring them.

I could't stop looking at the faces, once I had started. The younger, smiling ones I looked at more than once. I felt a sense of loss that I have no right to feel, because they aren't mine. And I felt so frustrated, knowing that more will die today and more tomorrow and for months to come, maybe years. And I felt angry as hell, because we were told we HAD to sacrifice these lives or we'd be attacked with sarin gas and smallpox and anthrax and that there would be "mushroom clouds" and that it was all ready to go, 45 minutes launch time - and when it turned out to be a lie, nobody so much as said they were sorry they screwed up.

I didn't post this link because I was hoping to persuade anyone in this forum of anything. Why would I, when almost everyone who's posted an opinion on Iraq has been against the war? I posted it because I felt grief, helplessness, depair, and a sense of foreboding about the faces still to be added. I needed to express those feelings. And yes, I did it to honor them.

You don't agree, you don't have to look.

I started to apologize for upsetting some of you, but there's enough passivity about this war. I won't apologize, because because there's no dishonor intended. Neither will I ask you to apologize for making a cruel assumption about someone you don't know and whose motives you can't begin to understand.

 

[cloudy]

I won't apologize, because because there's no dishonor intended. Neither will I ask you to apologize for making a cruel assumption about someone you don't know and whose motives you can't begin to understand.

I ask for no apology. What is cruel about stating that something, in my opinion, is wrong? I make no assumptions about you, other than you seem to be well-read, and that most of your posts seem to be thought out and well-written.

No, I don't know your motives, they may be absolutely the most innocent. However, I can't say that about the site with all those faces, can I?

No, I'm not going to look. I still think it heinous to use them for political ends, whether that's what you intended or not.

 

[ruminator]

Great post, Cloudy.
I'm not sure I agree with everything or anything, but it's good to read your thoughts.

I found a piece of art that I wanted to post a link to. It was a portrait of GWB composed of photos of the ones lost in action. It's moving and amazing but I felt guilty about promoting the use of the images in that way.

It's out there to be found if anyone wants to do a quick search.

 

[cloudy]

Great post, Cloudy.
I'm not sure I agree with everything or anything, but it's good to read your thoughts.

I found a piece of art that I wanted to post a link to. It was a portrait of GWB composed of photos of the ones lost in action. It's moving and amazing but I felt guilty about promoting the use of the images in that way.

It's out there to be found if anyone wants to do a quick search.

Thank you for not posting it. That kind of thing is exactly what gets to me. Hate Bush all you want, but leave the others out of it, ya know?

 

[ruminator]

Thank you for not posting it. That kind of thing is exactly what gets to me. Hate Bush all you want, but leave the others out of it, ya know?

Yup, I understand. I think there is also a feeling of community loss and empathy for how real and close to home that serious decision to go to war is. I didn't get a sense of hating Bush when I saw the pictures. I felt a sense of unnecessary loss of precious life.

I have 2 kids and one is an 18 yr old son.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Last night I was sitting alone at the computer and opened a link called "Faces Of The Fallen," which has been up for a while at The Washington Post site. I'd seen it a few times, but I didn't look until last night.

I didn't want to look, for the same reason I didn't want to see Schlinder's List or Saving Private Ryan a few years ago. It's difficult enough to contemplate that kind of carnage from a distance, as a stranger.

I didn't want to, but last night I looked anyway, for the same reason I eventually made myself see those movies: if I had died far from home, at an age when most people are beginning to plan their lives, I think I'd have liked knowing that strangers might wonder who I was and what I was like and what the world lost when it let me go.

I opened the link and looked at the faces because I felt bad for having turned away the other times I saw it. I did it because ignoring the dead felt like dishonoring them.

I could't stop looking at the faces, once I had started. The younger, smiling ones I looked at more than once. I felt a sense of loss that I have no right to feel, because they aren't mine. And I felt so frustrated, knowing that more will die today and more tomorrow and for months to come, maybe years. And I felt angry as hell, because we were told we HAD to sacrifice these lives or we'd be attacked with sarin gas and smallpox and anthrax and that there would be "mushroom clouds" and that it was all ready to go, 45 minutes launch time - and when it turned out to be a lie, nobody so much as said they were sorry they screwed up.

I didn't post this link because I was hoping to persuade anyone in this forum of anything. Why would I, when almost everyone who's posted an opinion on Iraq has been against the war? I posted it because I felt grief, helplessness, depair, and a sense of foreboding about the faces still to be added. I needed to express those feelings. And yes, I did it to honor them.

You don't agree, you don't have to look.

I started to apologize for upsetting some of you, but there's enough passivity about this war. I won't apologize, because because there's no dishonor intended. Neither will I ask you to apologize for making a cruel assumption about someone you don't know and whose motives you can't begin to understand.

Sher,

I do not think Cloudy was intimating anything about you. Her anger is however very justified at the people who put up such a site in the first place.

I have known many military men and by and large they support their country, their flag & their government. They are proud men & women, and they believe they are doing their duty and doing what is right for their country.

What this site has done is conscripted the dead, those who can no longer make their voices heard, in an effort to turn public sentiment against the war. It is a sentiment I seriously doubt the majority of them would have supported in life, but we will never know, as they cannot speak for themselves anymore. But this site, by using their likness, has given them a voice against the war. A voice that many would not have wished assocciated with them or their memory.

-Colly

 

[destinie21]

I don't support Bush but politics aside the reason I looked at the faces was to honor those fallen I do happen to have family fighting for whatever reason in Iraq and if they were struck down I'd want them to be acknowledeged and not just part of the nameless faceless legions would I want them used as a political bargining chip no but that seems to come with the territory unfortunatly

 

[shereads]

Families have contributed photos to "Faces of the Fallen," Cloudy.

It's published by the Washington Post, not some anti-war group. Its purpose is to honor the dead, just as local newspapers do when they publish a soldier's obituary with a photograph.

We've had several such obituaries in the Miami newspapers recently, and I have yet to see a letter to the editor from a soldier's family, saying, "How dare you dishonor our son by publishing the picture we sent you, and announcing that he was killed in action?"

You must have a deep-seated reason for not wanting these pictures published, if you think their families were insulting their dead by contributing photos to the site.